Location, Location, Location

I've been investigating Second Life recently for a class project, and it occurred to me (and I swear it was before I saw this talk), "How is real estate in Second Life like real estate in orbit?" The old edict in real estate that the three most important things in real estate are location, location, location is based on the premise that things are near each other. A gas station may have an advantage over another in the mornings, for example, even if they are across the street, because one is by the exit for northbound traffic and the other is by the exit from southbound traffic and getting to the far side of the street is often difficult. One house is more valuable than another to a family because it is near a school, but another is more valuable to a young couple because it's near good dining. In Second Life, one has the ability to teleport and the ability to create regions that are disconnected from other things, so "nearness" or location isn't necessarily a value-add anymore. The same is essentially true for a space station. There's infinite space to expand into, but one has to build the real estate to make the space usable. Can a study of real estate in Second Life help us strategize over the development of in-orbit resources?

Similarities

• Creation of new "space" at almost arbitrary locations, without (necessarily) relation to other spaces.
• Relation to new spaces can proceed in more dimensions than on Earth (up or down and up-spin r down-spin as well as left or right, back or forward), so "nearness" is easier to come by.

Differences

• One can't teleport; even inter-space station transit would take different amounts of time for stations that are far from each other.
• Different orbits are not as interchangable as regions in Second Life. Different orbits have different properties.

What else am I missing? Does this have any merit?