| Buying home, condo or any other real | | | | of 4.2% from 1949 to 2006. In contrast, |
| estate in a market that is protected | | | | the national average was 2.3%. Strong |
| from a bursting bubble is every | | | | restrictions on real estate development |
| investor's dream. Knowing where to look | | | | and a limited geography helped push San |
| for these bubble-proof markets and how | | | | Francisco to the top slot. |
| to identify them is crucial. | | | | Los Angeles ranked second in the report. |
| There are some important factors that | | | | The average annual home price |
| investors should consider when searching | | | | appreciation in Los Angeles was 3.7% |
| for stable investments such as | | | | from 1949 to 2006. Reductions in |
| single-family homes, condos or any other | | | | available land and increasing |
| type of real estate. Some of these | | | | restrictions on further development |
| factors include a fast growing | | | | helped pushed Los Angeles to the number |
| population (which positively impacts the | | | | 2 slot. |
| demand for housing), a solid and diverse | | | | Home prices in Seattle, which was third |
| economy (which impacts employment rates | | | | on the list, demonstrated an average |
| and subsequent demand for housing), | | | | appreciation rate of 3.2% from 1949 to |
| rising incomes (which impacts buyers' | | | | 2006. While Seattle made the top 5 list, |
| ability to purchase real estate), a | | | | recent easing of building restrictions |
| developing infrastructure (which | | | | may cause Seattle to fall out of the top |
| contributes to the appeal of a city or | | | | 5 over the next few years. |
| community), and restrictions on future | | | | Boston was fourth in the rankings. The |
| real estate development (which limits | | | | city has seen annual home prices |
| future supply of real estate). Investing | | | | appreciate by 3% over the period from |
| in real estate within communities that | | | | 1949 to 2006. A strong increase in per |
| meet these criteria may prove to be more | | | | capita income contributed to Boston's |
| profitable than communities that are | | | | high ranking. |
| missing one or more of these factors. | | | | New York City follows close behind with |
| A recent report by Business 2.0 Magazine | | | | an average annual home price |
| identified U.S. cities that have | | | | appreciation of 3% from 1949 to 2006. A |
| consistently demonstrated price | | | | limited geography, large population, and |
| appreciation in the real estate market. | | | | finite number of properties contributed |
| The October 2006 issue of the Magazine | | | | to New York's high ranking. |
| identified the top 5 real estate markets | | | | While there is no guarantee that any of |
| that demonstrated an upward price trend | | | | the real estate markets listed |
| over a long period time. The top-ranking | | | | previously are truly "bubble proof," the |
| cities were: | | | | factors described above may help |
| 1. San Francisco, California | | | | investors find the profitable markets |
| 2. Los Angeles, California | | | | and avoid "bubble" markets. Since the |
| 3. Seattle, Washington | | | | real estate market is constantly |
| 4. Boston, Massachusetts | | | | changing, be sure to seek out the |
| 5. New York City, New York | | | | services of a skillful real estate agent |
| San Francisco topped the list with an | | | | to help you navigate your next real |
| average annual home price appreciation | | | | estate purchase. |