Historical (lack of) change in home prices in major cities

"For the Washington Post's Department of Data, Andrew Van Dam looks at historical home prices in cities, dating back to 1890. We often treat buying a house in the United States as an investment that grows faster than inflation. In some cities like Los Angeles, Boston, and Seattle, with relatively high house prices, this is definitely the case. In other cities, like Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, house prices mostly stuck with inflation, no different from spaghetti or sprockets."

"We often treat buying a house in the United States as an investment that grows faster than inflation. In some cities like Los Angeles, Boston, and Seattle, with relatively high house prices, this is definitely the case. In other cities, like Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, house prices mostly stuck with inflation, no different from spaghetti or sprockets."

Historical home-price data dating back to 1890 show divergent long-term performance across U.S. cities. In high-price coastal cities such as Los Angeles, Boston, and Seattle, nominal home values have grown faster than inflation, producing substantial real returns. In industrial and Rust Belt cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, nominal prices have mostly tracked inflation, producing little or no real appreciation. Housing markets display persistent regional patterns shaped by local demand, supply constraints, and economic opportunities. Decadal booms and busts punctuate these long-term trends, so timing and location both affect investment outcomes and expectations.

Read at flowingdata.com