Do homes on the coasts really appreciate more?

[John Anderson]

I've only been an investor for the past 10 years, so I realize I'm relatively new at the game. 

One assumption that I seem to keep hearing about is that the Midwest/South is for cashflow, while the coasts are for appreciation. Based on what I've seen over that time period, however, I'm not sure that this is true.

While properties on the coasts are certainly more expensive, in terms of % growth I've actually seen higher growth in smaller markets. Ex. homes in Detroit, Charlotte, Cleveland that I picked up for $50k-$100k four years ago have now doubled, while homes in the Bay Area have gone up by 20-25% (ex. a $2mm home is now $2.5mm). On top of that, the cash flow is MUCH superior to what I've been getting in the Bay Area (like 3-4x). 

If someone could let me know if there's something I'm missing here, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!