Suppose everyone who wanted to had the ability to own land in New York (obviously not possible geometrically, but for sake of argument). Do you think that property in New York would still be worth the same?

Land only has a buying price/rent because there is an unmet demand. This is a principle economists realized centuries ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

> Not to mention, if you're seeking to reside, not speculate, the "value" of the property is kinda immaterial.

The modern property ownership system basically forces homeowners to be speculators. 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)?

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.

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.

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.

You can make the property you own hard to buy or easy to buy; that's obviously up to you. The problem is that landowners pass laws that make it difficult for prospective owners to buy any property or for current owners to build new units on the land they already own. This is fundamentally illegitimate, but unfortunately it's very popular.