Buy-and-hold philosophies: Cash flow vs Appreciation

[Phil Sharp]

On some other threads, there seems to be an underlying debate or difference in philosophy around buy-and-hold investment strategy:  

In one camp, the goal is to invest in high appreciation areas, even though they are high-priced and might not be cash flow positive in the near term.  The idea is that the appreciation will far outstrip the relatively modest cash flows you'd be able to get in lower priced areas.  These folks might argue that, in highly desirable areas like coastal California, you can pretty much bank on solid appreciation over time.

In another camp, cash flow is seen as king, and appreciation the icing on the cake.  The idea for these folks is that if you are banking on appreciation, you are essentially speculating rather than investing.  These folks try hard to find areas that are likely to see at least modest appreciation over time, but the key difference is that they don't bank on it.

Maybe the ideal is somewhere in between, as I know it is not a binary, either/or decision. I would love to hear how different buy-and-hold investors have charted a path between these two extremes.  I have some roots and a property in coastal California and have seen the benefits of this appreciation first-hand, but the costs still blow my mind and I don't have a ton of cash to throw around.