I'm sure the church has done the math, don't you think that building a temple in an area is a "good investment" for the church? I mean that people are more likely to pay a full tithe if they can actually see and attend a temple?

I think so.
It's a way of keeping up appearances.
Keeps the tbm members scrabbling
even harder for the
non-existant brass ring of the celestial kingdom.
Very, very sad....

I don't know anything about Real Estate.

But what I'm seeing lately is a mixed use approach. A temple, ward/stake building and a residential buffer zone all on the same property.

Is that correct?

That's how most of the little southern McTemples have been done.

For instance, take the new Meridian, Idaho temple (announced last year). My house is 3 miles from the Boise temple and also 3 miles from the announced site for the Meridian temple.

But, our temple district extends clear the heck to Bend, OR. So, people coming from the far ends of the district are no closer to the new temple, plus it is farther from the freeway than the Boise temple is.

But, it is being built in probably the wealthiest area of town, so I'm going with they are looking more at return on investment than on usefulness.

I have it on pretty good sources that just one temple costs more than the church spends on ALL meetinghouses in a single year combined. (I don't have a dollar figure, and apparently there's lots of variables.) So, cost seems to be no issue.

I think the church is more sophisticated than that and thinks about concepts like "brand" and "marketing".

There is little doubt that temples strengthen the brand and are effective marketing tools.

Good point...brand and marketing. But the end result is more tithe payers right?

Probably, but I think they also care about status, growth, etc. just as much as $.

Most non American temples are seriously under utilised.