Here is a big surprise: I have a slightly different take on it. 
Property owners (managers) have to make decision about how to exercise their bundle of rights. No aspect of the property is more central to these decisions than value. So, at first pass, value is the most important aspect of property.
We measure value as what the property will command in terms of money. However, we tend to assume this means how much it will command in exchange for the fee title. How much money the property will command in exchange for itself on a periodic basic – i.e., rental value – is also a measure of, well, value. So too, is the amount of money the property will command in exchange for a physical part of itself.
So, to say, as most have said here, that “income” or “earning power” is the most important aspect of the property, is just another way of saying it’s value is the most important aspect. All the other “aspects” of the property – location, size, age, etc. – are causes. The capacity of the property to command money in exchange for itself is the effect. That is, the other “aspects” may have value, but the value itself is most important. So, in a way, I am agreeing with most posts, but putting it in broader terms.
Someone brought up owner-occupied property. [I am skipping over several theoretical building blocks]. Capitalization is figuratively and literally a reciprocal process. The value of (the right to receive) the capital sum is equal to the value of (the right to receive) the income stream - by defintion. The principle of opportunity cost suggests the corollary that the value of the capital sum is equal to the right to avoid paying the income stream. That is, if it worth $1 mil for the right to receive $10k per month, it ought to be worth $1 mil for the right to avoid paying it. So, why do users often pay a premium over market rent capitalized? I’ll save that for another time.
Property owners (managers) have to make decision about how to exercise their bundle of rights. No aspect of the property is more central to these decisions than value. So, at first pass, value is the most important aspect of property.
We measure value as what the property will command in terms of money. However, we tend to assume this means how much it will command in exchange for the fee title. How much money the property will command in exchange for itself on a periodic basic – i.e., rental value – is also a measure of, well, value. So too, is the amount of money the property will command in exchange for a physical part of itself.
So, to say, as most have said here, that “income” or “earning power” is the most important aspect of the property, is just another way of saying it’s value is the most important aspect. All the other “aspects” of the property – location, size, age, etc. – are causes. The capacity of the property to command money in exchange for itself is the effect. That is, the other “aspects” may have value, but the value itself is most important. So, in a way, I am agreeing with most posts, but putting it in broader terms.
Someone brought up owner-occupied property. [I am skipping over several theoretical building blocks]. Capitalization is figuratively and literally a reciprocal process. The value of (the right to receive) the capital sum is equal to the value of (the right to receive) the income stream - by defintion. The principle of opportunity cost suggests the corollary that the value of the capital sum is equal to the right to avoid paying the income stream. That is, if it worth $1 mil for the right to receive $10k per month, it ought to be worth $1 mil for the right to avoid paying it. So, why do users often pay a premium over market rent capitalized? I’ll save that for another time.
