The article is a summary of a new research paper that covers real estate prices over roughly twenty years up to the start of the pandemic.
The argument is that booms and busts tend to be caused by a real change in fundamentals that people then become too optimistic about.
For example: people knew "super-star cities" (SF, Seattle, etc) were going to attract more capital and jobs than other cities, so in the 2000s they piled into investments in these areas. However, they were so optimistic that they overshot, causing a bubble that ended in 2012.
That they overshot, however, does not mean that there were not real fundamental changes that made these cities valuable. So these super-star cities, even though they had a real-estate crash, did really well because the fundamentals kept being in their favor from 2012-2020. Places like Vegas did not do as well because the fundamentals are not as favorable there (fewer high-paying jobs, more space to build).
The question now is whether we are seeing a real estate mania in response to the idea of working from home. Prices in the suburbs have shot way up. Are people over-estimating this change? Perhaps, and if they are, it means that the suburbs could face more of a bubble popping than the city. But it may also mean that if WFH becomes a long-term trend, that even if prices collapse more in the suburbs (after having shot up in a frenzy), that we may still see a permanent shift in equilibrium between being in the city and in the suburbs.
So, if you believe WFH will be a long term, real fundamental shift, you may want to buy up some suburban places when, and if, a bubble pops in those markets.