It should be noted that Tim wrote this near the peak of the housing bubble in Seattle (Kenmore neighborhood). The house he identified for $425k in that piece would now sell for about $300k, which puts monthly costs at about 25% more expensive than renting instead of 78% more expensive.
In a completely average, non-bubble housing market, buying (counting insurance, taxes and breaks, maintenance, etc.) is about 20% more expensive than renting in the short term, but after 5-10 years of inflation and rent increases, renting becomes more expensive. There's a definite tradeoff between short-term savings with no equity but high flexibility vs. long-term savings with equity and permanence. That tradeoff was slanted heavily in favor of renting in Kenmore, WA in 2007, but as Tim's conclusion notes, it is not always so; whatever your situation, "run the numbers ... and do what works for you."
That is a good post, but as Christopher Mayer points out on the NPR piece, you have to be very careful about the market.
Cities with historically strong housing markets, such as Seattle and New York, have a very high ownership premium. Other cities with a more traditionally flat housing market, such as Pittsburgh or many rural communities, do not.
So if you live in Seattle like Tim, by all means, renting might be better for you. But in Madison, Wisconsin you might spend the same amount to own a house as you do to rent one.
