I think your analogy is very poor - indeed I'd say if an analogy can be wrong, this is.
The proximity of the location of a dwelling to the city is analogous the the beneficial qualities of a domain name. Memorability, zeitgeist, aptness, etc.. The unity of each name is responsible for the cost of obtaining it (second hand) as much as the proximity of location to an economic centre is responsible for real-estate costs. Both are scarce.
Your analogy is good for one thing, both situations are impossible: you can't allow everyone the same domain name and you can't enable everyone to occupy the same physical space.
The point I was trying to convey with the analogy is exactly that of (the lack of) scarcity in domain names.
Especially pre-bubble there was this real-estate-scarcity angle on domain-names: if you have a website about shoes, you need shoes.com, or you'll never be leading. But today we have Zappos which is a name I'm certain was purchased for $2.99 back when they launched and is developed into a first-class business today. If they'd insisted on getting shoes.com, chances are they might never have launched.
The proximity of the location of a dwelling to the city is analogous the the beneficial qualities of a domain name. Memorability, zeitgeist, aptness, etc.. The unity of each name is responsible for the cost of obtaining it (second hand) as much as the proximity of location to an economic centre is responsible for real-estate costs. Both are scarce.
Your analogy is good for one thing, both situations are impossible: you can't allow everyone the same domain name and you can't enable everyone to occupy the same physical space.