A recent analysis looked at how affordable suburban residences were compared to prices in the most expensive cities in the U.S.:

Buying a house in the suburbs isn’t just a little easier on the wallet for city dwellers. In some parts of the country, bedroom communities offer an entirely different real estate market. Over 600 of the 777 suburbs within 30 miles of the country’s 20 most expensive cities are more affordable in terms of price per square foot — up to 65% cheaper in some places.

The East Coast offers the most suburban alternatives to main cities: 95 of the top 100 suburbs with the biggest price differences are near New York, Washington D.C., Boston, and Miami…

These are the top 10 cities with the most relatively affordable suburbs for home buyers, ranked by the percentage of suburbs with a lower cost per square foot compared to the main city.

1. Salt Lake City, Utah (100%)
2. New York, New York (98%)
3. Washington, D.C. (97%)
4. Boston, Massachusetts (93%)
5. Honolulu, Hawaii (90%)
6. Austin, Texas (89%)
7. Seattle, Washington (83%)
8. Boise, Idaho (80%)
9. Denver, Colorado (80%)
10. Riverside, California (79%)

A few thoughts in response:

1. Do people always seek out the cheapest housing and move to the suburbs? Some will move to the suburbs because of lower price points. Others might stay in the city or go to the suburbs for other reasons.
2. Is 30 miles out from an expensive city a large enough radius? It might be for some of these cities and not for others. Additionally, many commutes are suburb to suburb to being 40 miles out and commuting to a suburb 25 miles from the city is a different comparison than city versus suburban settings.
3. One reason the expensive cities are so pricey is that they are desirable. If more people move to a region, does this then decrease the affordability of suburbs as well?
4. Is it safe to assume then that there are metro areas where city and suburb prices do not have much difference?