Comment by phaser

I think the point of how the city center is totally disconnected from the value of the property is super spot on, for example in my hometown, Santiago de Chile I have seen or it is my impression that although when the city was founded the city center, it had the highest value, and it is where aristocratic families lived today the reality is quite the opposite, the price of the properties has moved even towards the periphery of the city in comunas (boroughs) such as Barnechea and Vitacura and the city center of the city is perceived as a place of low status; On the contrary in the city where I live now, Berlin, the center of the city Mitte is in my perception where the most expensive properties are, so it’s difficult for me, to understand what is the connection between the city center and the value of the properties. In the case of Santiago the neighborhoods that are most appreciated, they are really super far from everything and require a road trip to go to the airport or any other central place, then perhaps I imagine that the value of the land, is very subjective and very based on the culture of the city. Despite the fact that the center of Santiago I find it a beautiful and quite interesting place, it is perceived by being perceived under status in a culture where status is important, that seems to be the most important factor more than any other type of deterministic formula.

Perhaps it could also be argued that because the resources received by neighbourhoods in Chile are based on the affluence of their residents, it follows that the comunas with more resources are, of course, more important and appreciated. This is because the people who live there are considered more valuable, even though I may be less important in other ways.