Would the land really be as valuable as it is if people weren't able to borrow money to purchase it? Someone would still own it and yet the price would largely

Would the land really be as valuable as it is if people weren't able to borrow money to purchase it? Someone would still own it and yet the price would largely be capped by the amount that people were able to save, not the amount that people are able to promise to repay. Just like it's been shown that the availability of student loans increases the cost of education, the availability of mortgages increases the cost of real estate. And the banks collect much of that increase by, through financial hand waving, loaning out many times the amount of money we give them to watch over. Somehow we've institutionalized a system where banks are able to leech money off one of society's most basic needs, shelter, while providing little-to-no benefit overall.