I'm close to 40 and choose to rent a house worth 750k for about 5 years now. I could have bought with a 50% mortgage if I cashed in all my invesments and savings, but I wouldn't be much better off overall. Property isn't the only way to save for retirement.
There is dead money in buying too. Tax, interest part of the payments, legal, marketing, your own time, ongoing maintenance, insurance etc. And cost beneifts to renting, especially if you live in a fully managed, well furnished property.
A deposit reinvested in the stock market, would beat unleveraged property in most cases. People say stocks are risky, but leveraging up on property debt adds risk too. I do not think there will be a crash in housing, but at the same time, I doubt stocks will crash in isolation to property either. If there is a general crash, I'd rather be in stocks so I can get out quick.
I rent in a prime area and yeild is quite low, just over 2%. Prices are fairly flat too. The papers are full of stories of rich folk preferring to rent instead of buy. I'd agree the sums are a bit different sub 250k.
I'm hoping to retire at some point in the next 10 years. And will probably switch location. I don't want to risk not being able to sell my house due to slow markets etc. I value liquidity.
There is value in having flexibility and liquidity, in case you need to move for work or personal reasons. I work in business so having spare cash to invest is always handy. Thre freedom is worth paying for my in my case. The idea of having to possibly needing wait 6 months to move boggles my mind. But not everyone cares about this of course.
I might buy a property in the next few years, but not solely for financial reasons. I could retire without one. Brits have a bot of a fetish for property!