The most expensive areas in every state and DC

This blog is incorrect. ZILLOW has Beverly Hills at 3.6 million average home value. Half the Bay Area is pricier than that. The Bay Area has 33 more billionaires than the LA area, and the Bay Area covers much less land. Hillsborough, Atherton, Belvedere, Presidio Heights, Portola Valley etc. all have higher home values and more billionaires than Beverly Hills. With such a glaring falsehood at the top of the list, I find it hard to believe anything your link claims.

Atherton 94027 has had the highest average California house valuation for at least a decade.

I am typing this while living in one of these areas.

What about Southern Sudan?

California Cities by 2018 Average Family Income(Metro Area): ($300,000+) $566,168 Atherton, CA(San Francisco) $471,470 Belvedere, CA(San Francisco) $460,086 Woodside, CA(San Francisco) $458,652 Rolling Hills, CA(Los Angeles) $451,854 Hillsborough, CA(San Francisco) $441,182 Los Altos Hills, CA(San Jose) $440,740 Monte Sereno, CA(San Jose) $432,414 Hidden Hills, CA(Los Angeles) $408,732 Lake Sherwood, CA(Oxnard) $394,395 Ross, CA(San Francisco) $366,063 Ladera, CA(San Francisco) $365,532 Bodega Bay, CA(Santa Rosa) $359,614 Kentfield, CA(San Francisco) $348,828 Portola Valley, CA(San Francisco) $347,444 Norris Canyon, CA(San Francisco) $336,477 Orinda, CA(San Francisco) $335,926 Emerald Lake Hills, CA(San Francisco) $335,281 Los Altos, CA(San Jose) $331,465 North Gate, CA(San Francisco) $330,437 Tiburon, CA(San Francisco) $329,850 Loyola, CA(San Jose) $324,908 Nicasio, CA(San Francisco) $324,510 Piedmont, CA(San Francisco) $318,350 Montecito, CA(Santa Barbara) $315,742 Mill Valley, CA(San Francisco) $310,588 Malibu, CA(Los Angeles) $308,526 Alamo, CA(San Francisco)

Beverly Hills isn’t even in the top 30 for average family income, it’s not even top 4 in the LA area. This list is trash.

The most expensive zip codes are actually unlisted.

These zip codes? Fine if you want to live with Ma, Pa, and some country girls.

I was skeptical of OPs list for the same reason r1.

I figured the richest part of California must be in the Bay area somewhere, not Southern California.

You see states like Mississippi and North Dakota and the most expensive, exclusive parts of the state...has houses that cost 400k.

Man, definitely a different world.

The OP's list can't be real, right? If so, Mississippi must be one hell of a hellhole. The median price for that state's most upscale neighborhood is less money than than the cost of the homes of every home owner I know here in NJ - and one of them lives in Newark.

For those saying the list is wrong, do you have a more accurate list?

[quote]This blog is incorrect. ZILLOW has Beverly Hills at 3.6 million average home value.

Zillow is crap dude. It's so not accurate. Besides, there is a whole Billionaire enclave inside of Beverly Hills people like you would not know about.

r5 Income and property values are two completely different measurements. Apples and oranges.

Income and property values are obviously highly, highly related r12.

And there are plenty of sources that list Alterton as the most expensive place in California.

@r11 north Beverly Park is not the secret you think it is, and no, there are no “hidden” billionaires in LA that somehow outnumber the bay. Here’s Forbes list of billionaires by region around the world. 1- 134 New York 2- 95 San Francisco 3- 71 Hong Kong 4- 70 Moscow 5- 67 Beijing 6- 62 Los Angeles

And the LA metro is 5,000 square miles, SF metro is 3,500 sqm. Once again, Beverly Hills isn’t even the wealthiest area in its own metro area, let alone CA. The list is false.

Beverly Hills is like middle income to the uber wealthy of California. There’s always a few 100 million dollars homes on the market in the bay. When it happens in LA they write breathless articles about the listing.

I prefer my regular weekend excursions to Mar-a-Lago.

I love this cat fighting between SoCal and NorCal.

(But I agree, the Bay definitely has more money than LA.)

The article seems to focus on *median" house price rather than average which may explain Beverly Hills -- a single $100M house may make up for all those $450K one-bedroom apartments in the Flats.

Or, more likely, the stats are old or random since the article is intended to be clickbait, not an actual study

@r18 yeah I think it’s just bullshit clickbate. All the sources I can find point to Beverly Hills not being top ten in California for even median house price. Here it’s listed as number 40 in the country for median price, with most of the top ten occupied by the Bay Area.

Median for atherton: listing 8.5 million, sale 6.7 million

Median for Beverly Hills: listing 4 million, sale 2.9 million

I've lived in 2 of those zip codes. Still live in one. I ain't rich.

I have to guess that Palos Verdes is more expensive than Beverly Hills, but I could be wrong. It's certainly more beautiful and better situated. All those places look wonderful--cheers to whoever can manage to live there. But I've found that you can live in a poorer area adjacent to these and just spend all your time in the upscale place--I did that in L.A. and even near Snowmass, for example. If you only go home to your cozy poors' house to sleep, who cares? Do you think the person in a $12 million house lives in all those rooms? They huddle in one place watching t.v., just like you and me.