In housing, almost every buy-vs-rent discussion concentrates on cost. Renters must consider losing out on equity and appreciation. Buyers must consider insurance, taxes, closing costs (both when buying and selling), repairs, etc. There are lengthy articles, discussions, and interactive calculators about this dilemma, but they’re fixated on an entirely economic calculus. If you are in a position to seriously consider the question (and are reasonably sure of your financial discipline and algebra skills), I think these resources are something of a distraction.
Housing is an aesthetic question as much as it is an economic one. You are not selecting a financial vehicle, but how you want to live. For instance, you might value a kind of environmental permeability — ensuring it is very easy to go indoors and outdoors dozens of times per day. Perhaps you work from home and simply want to stroll in and out of nature. Perhaps you have a dog or a child who wants to do the same. I value this greatly: the number of steps from my kitchen or my studio to bare grass and flowers should be as few as possible. Rather than travel to a park, I can open a window and hear my children in the sandbox, while I continue working, cooking, or relaxing. There is a corresponding permeability to much city life: while you may not be able to step from an apartment door into quiet greenery, you can walk to stores, cafes, parks, etc much more easily. These are both luxuries (many places have neither feature), and they carry an expense, but they are not caught in the calculus of buy-vs-rent.