They are different. Let's explore both.
When COVID hit hard, many people re-evaluated - often hastily - where and how they wanted to live. Some of these people were highly reactionary expecting the very worst and an extended global meltdown. Many immediately surmised that viral infection and death rates would be far higher in urban centers where the concentration of people was higher. This theory proved to be inaccurate. Some surmised that they could only live forever on a farm or a beach cottage or mountain hut without ever having explored that lifestyle. Many of these reactionaries have since realized their thoughts and aspirations were out of touch with their reality and they are re-visiting where they wish to live yet again. Some markets that experienced this insurgence of a new audience were unprepared and under-supplied and home prices surged at levels few thought sustainable. Some of these areas will erode some or most of these gains of the past 2 years.
COVID also triggered something that had been missing in the markets: the urgency to accelerate plans that had been mulled over but not acted on for some time: retirement, a move to the suburbs, a move to a city, or smaller city, a move for political reasons, a move for lower state taxation, a move to a warmer or cooler climate, etc. These moves, while accelerated, causing exaggerated home price spikes, are less susceptible to big price declines. I'd suspect this arena re-balances, but with much less vigor than other markets and it's possible these areas may continue to see price appreciation, mostly fueled by under-supply, but equally by continued, growing demand.
This is but one more reason to examine markets individually in a hyper-localized housing world.
Source: Leonard Steinberg with Compass - 10.24.22