This is true. But we don't really have space issues here in America so I'm not ready to downsize to my government issued cubicle yet!
We do have plenty of space, but what concerns me is that urban sprawl is eating up wild places & leading to reduced biodiversity.
Sure, it's my personal problem to detest seeing ranchburgers, plywood mansions, new roads, Kwik E Marts, & bland expansive lawns springing up all over.
But I wager that some day more people will lament this loss.
So I urge people to consider the advantages of saving money by living with a smaller footprint.
The issue is this.
If you rent a house then you are either making someone a profit or they are loosing money. If they are loosing money they won't rent for long. If they do continue to rent it means that the rent that they charge is of at least equal value to what they have in costs. Otherwise all home owning landlords would go out of business. Do you see what I am getting at here? Short term renting can be cheaper and more convenient. But owning usually is cheaper overall but with a degree of risk.
Owning also means someone else is making a profit (presuming it's financed).
Apartments cost less to build & operate than a detached house.
- Less land per sq ft of occupiable area
- Lower utility costs because reduced envelope to volume ratio
- Lower maintenance costs because of the volume of work per address, captive staff, etc, e
Btw, you mean "losing" instead of "loosing".
I had to say it, otherwise my head would explode.