If you are renting you are prioritizing the location rather than the house. You can't find a house with your ideal gym, but you can't change your city to New York city.
The way I see it: If you don't plan to live in that place for the next 15-20 years, then you shouldn't buy. You can always invest your money in more liquid assets.
Where I am (suburb of Vancouver) a mortgage payment for an apartment of similar size/quality/location to what I have now is about 50% more per month.
That's sort of normal, I think. You get a better standard of living for that extra money.
My point was, originally, that if you're in an apartment you'll most likely be able to save for a downpayment on the sort of house on which you'll be able to afford the monthly payment. If you can't, either you're not the kind of person who saves money or there's something wrong with your math.
If staying in a city 1 year, you almost certainly should rent. If staying in a city for a guaranteed 30 years, you almost certainly should buy.
The exact place where those two switch over? It can vary on a lot of things. Single and gonna get married soon? Buying a studio condo may not be that smart. Married with 3 kids and stable schools and family? May tip towards the buy sooner range..
For example where I live (not major city), I cannot rent a house like the one I buy. The best house I can rent would cost 50% more than my mortgage payment, and only be about 75% as nice.