Okay, but as I said, you still end up financially better off than if you had rented as you never recoup the money you spend on rent.
That is not clear when you factor in maintenance expenditures and the fact that rent is usually cheaper than the monthly installments of a loan--otherwise, you know, no one would rent. But even granting that, you end up with a lot of money on the form of a house. What are you going to do with it, sell it and then spend the money on renting another place to live? How does this make you better off enough to compensate for the opportunity cost?
As to the inconveniences associated with renting, those depend massively on what you're looking for. If you intend to live in the same city for many years - as many people often do - then the inconvenience of being tied to the place is not that great. Further to that, it is of course possible to move, rent out your own home and rent yourself in the place you are moving to. Whether houses have been designed for 'practical living' is a bit of a peculiar question don't you think? Is there really a definition of what practical living is? What is practical for one person may be highly impractical for another and what is seen as ostentation to one may be seen as practical and useful to others. Aesthetics are, of course, part of one's life too; not everyone wishes to live an ascetic life.
Many people do intend to do that, but in today's world wanting it is no guarantee that they'll be able to.
And anyway, the ostentation aspect is admittedly subjective. Like I said, as long as you acknowledge that a house is a luxury good, not an investment, there is nothing wrong on spending money in a better/bigger/fancier house if it makes you happy.
