Growth rates of city property and suburb properties.
It would seem city properties (for example those in SF or Silicon Valley) increase in value more than the surrounding suburb properties (for example, Sonoma, Contra Costa counties). But I wonder if that's just from isolated periods of market activities and in the long run the average growth rates are similar?
There should be a periodic "spill over" effect when city property prices becomes too unaffordable, no? Thus leading to suburb prices catching up.
Are there any analysis on this?