It might be a thriving city vs smaller town thing. Thriving cities outside of California (say Atlanta or Dallas) have valuable real estate in central locations just like in California cities. Nobody wants to be on the furthest outskirts with the furthest commute - it's more just an exhaust valve for growth so you don't get the same absolutely insane prices and resulting problems like homelessness to the same level.
> Thriving cities outside of California (say Atlanta or Dallas) have valuable real estate in central locations just like in California cities.
Unless things have really changed recently, this isn't true of, say Houston. It was mostly sprawl for most people, and no real functional inner core. There is the inner-loop vs outside, but it really isn't the same dynamic as other big metros (NB LA is it's own weirdness).
I'm not as familiar with Houston in particular, but I think the important note for most of these places is that while there are expensive "central locations" that isn't the same as saying prices are centered in downtown (which in many cities comes from a legacy of racist policy/actions, though this is rather aside from the point of them being different from what the article linked here describes about a constant outward-migration and abandonment cycle, vs a particular moment in history). In Dallas and Atlanta, those areas are largely north of downtown. In LA, they're largely west. IIRC Austin and San Antonio had hot spots in the northern parts of the city too, but I'm less up to date there.
To me "expensive suburb/exurb" is really not comparable to urban density. If all you are talking about are fancy HOAs and gated communities then I think it's a different beast.
