The problem is that it's not logistically possible. The very thing you want us to ignore for the sake of argument is the crux of the issue.
New York is a port. Ports become cities, because access to the rest of the area is kind of needed to access the rest of the area. Ports are valuable.
> If you have to pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions!) to buy a home, are you really going to be okay if it takes a massive hit (or doesn't go up in value as much as expected)?
Unrealized losses aren't real losses. It's one of the things that confuses me about cars as well. I buy a car, I drive it for as long as possible. I'm not looking to resell it. Same with property. As long as when I sell it, I'm not losing money to sell it, I'm good. Because I'm not selling to make money, I'm selling to divest myself of the obligation of ownership for some reason.
And it's important to note that I said that I'm not losing money to sell it. If I owe on it, I want to sell it for enough to cover that and any closing costs on my end. Other than that, I don't really care. I'm not a real estate investor.
> New York is a port. Ports become cities, because access to the rest of the area is kind of needed to access the rest of the area. Ports are valuable.
Sorry, I'm completely lost as to your point here. My point is simply that land is valuable because it is scarce, and its value is the difference in productivity between the given land and the best free land. From that, it follows that if land values are high, there's a massive difference in productivity between high value land and the best free land.
> Other than that, I don't really care. I'm not a real estate investor.
It's great that you don't but your view isn't the majority view. Homeownership is considered as a way to build wealth for the middle class, and this view is pervasive. This is pretty much said all the time, everywhere ("homeownership wealth", "intergenerational wealth", "buying a home is a good investment" etc.), by both politicians and the finance industry, so I'm surprised you don't think this is the case.
I'll give a concrete example though. A member of Parliament responsible for housing policy (Adam Vaughan) was asked if a 10% drop in house prices (after a year of ~30% rises) would be acceptable, and his answer was no, because "We know that Canadians rely on home ownership to secure their place in the economy now, but also as they retire". I doubt his view his uncommon either. He's simply stating what homeowners (who are the majority) think.
Ports are valuable, that makes the land that make up the ports valuable. Geography matters. New York would still be valuable because it's in a valuable situation.
Because housing security is also inherently valuable.
Also, what's to make the words of Canadian parliament the truth? Does he not have a vested interest in a certain outcome? Residential home owners aren't looking to "wealth" when they buy a house. They're looking for residence.
New York is a port. Ports become cities, because access to the rest of the area is kind of needed to access the rest of the area. Ports are valuable.
> If you have to pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions!) to buy a home, are you really going to be okay if it takes a massive hit (or doesn't go up in value as much as expected)?
Unrealized losses aren't real losses. It's one of the things that confuses me about cars as well. I buy a car, I drive it for as long as possible. I'm not looking to resell it. Same with property. As long as when I sell it, I'm not losing money to sell it, I'm good. Because I'm not selling to make money, I'm selling to divest myself of the obligation of ownership for some reason.
And it's important to note that I said that I'm not losing money to sell it. If I owe on it, I want to sell it for enough to cover that and any closing costs on my end. Other than that, I don't really care. I'm not a real estate investor.