I don't like either of these options. With how terrible construction standards are nowadays, living in a tower is a big financial risk, not to mention a risk to your safety. The buildings have fatal flaws in them all the time. Cracks in the foundation. Real awful shyt like that. Because construction is a corrupt industry and construction owns government. They get away with cutting corners because they still make more money even after bribing politicians to turn a blind eye than they would make if they actually built it properly.
More than a quarter of new Sydney apartment blocks have defects, report suggests
And insurance won't pay out for that, believe me. Oh you bought an apartment that's now worthless because the building has cracked foundations? Tough. The insurers won't give you a cent.
Fire escapes is another super important factor. You want to be safe from that shyt. You don't want to have to run down thirty flights of stairs.
Now let's come to houses. The objections to them raised in this thread are equally valid. Too much work to maintain. Too large. Too far away from where you work and socialise. They're a safer investment financially than a high rise apartment, but they're still shyt.
For me the best place to live is in a small apartment block. No.more than three floors tall. And an old building as well, I'm talking at least 50 years old. Construction standards were more stringent back then, plus if a building has stood that long you know it's solidly built. And at just three floors, evacuation is not a problem at all. I'd live on the first floor (which is not the ground floor, it's the floor one above the floor at ground level and one below the top floor in a three-storey building) if I had a choice.
Such a building has the advantage of location and low maintenance, without the disadvantage of modern high rises. It's a good compromise. Yeah you might not have an amazing view, but who cares about that? If you want a view go climb fukking Mount Everest