Is it that hard to believe, especially with other articles[0] discussing how much millenials love pets even before having kids, that there's a significant number of people who prefer yards and quiet and peace and all those other suburban perks over living in dense environments? I don't deny that a lot of people prefer living in the city, but it's not only price that can make people choose the alternative. (But due to the nature of density and surface area, you'd have to seriously large majority prefering the suburbs to really drive the city prices down.)
There's also a definitions thing hiding in here: much of San Fransisco is pretty damn suburban, with houses, one or two story buildings, etc. Still expensive as hell, though. And then look at all the towns on the peninsula. I'd argue that the affordability differences are regional much more than urban/suburban driven.
Worth also looking at the costs within those regions of city vs certain suburbs, like SF vs Palo Alto, or LA vs Santa Monica.
There's also a definitions thing hiding in here: much of San Fransisco is pretty damn suburban, with houses, one or two story buildings, etc. Still expensive as hell, though. And then look at all the towns on the peninsula. I'd argue that the affordability differences are regional much more than urban/suburban driven.
Worth also looking at the costs within those regions of city vs certain suburbs, like SF vs Palo Alto, or LA vs Santa Monica.
[0] such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/13/m... http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-pets-have-the-potential-...