According to Huffington Post, NerdWallet (who?) did a study to determine the richest cities in America by finding out which have the largest percentage of households earning more than $100,000 per year. Turns out The Woodlands was No. 10 on that list, with 53.4 percent of its households earning more than $100k annually.
But what stuck out (for me at least) was the gratuitous use of the word "city." No offense to NerdWallet (I say again, who?), but these are suburbs of cities. The Woodlands is a nice place and all, but its population, if it were even counted as a city on most U.S. population lists, would place it just ahead of Temecula, California, at No. 267. So, with all due respect to The Woodlands and the fine folks at NerdWallet, it's a rather dubious statistic made even more so by the other "cities" on the list.
For example, two other Texas locales made the top ten, Frisco (No. 9 with 53.7 percent) and Flower Mound (way up at No. 2 with 62.8 percent). No offense to the bustling metropolis that is Flower Mound, Texas, but both those are suburbs of Dallas. In fact, five of the top ten were in California and four of those were suburbs of San Francisco.
What this study really tells us is what suburbs the rich folks move to when they live near a big city. That makes for an interesting list because no actual city appears in the top 20, meaning wealth is concentrated in small communities like The Woodlands.
It shouldn't really come as much of a surprise given that the median household income is over $87,000 per year and the median house cost is $250,000, more than double the median home cost in the state of Texas. At one time, The Woodlands was considered the home of "new money" in Houston while River Oaks was "old money." Then there was my hood, Lindale Park, which has always been considered money because it's so awesome. What what?