What about if you get to 60, sell your house and use the money to rent for the rest of your life. In that case you might have higher short term costs as well but to you can stay in short term as you will likely not need a house for long enough to make long term more economical.
Also housing markets in different places don't move in unison so there is some room to trade markets and turn a profit.
Not sure any of this effects the point of the article though.
Yes - you are only naturally short the housing you will need for the rest of your life, but if you own a house then that represents housing for the rest of the asset's life.
If the life of the asset is expected to be significantly longer than your life, then you are indeed slightly long in housing.
Similar reasoning applies to willing your house to your kids (or whoever else) -- that's potentially a lot of value you can transfer when you no longer have housing needs yourself.
Also housing markets in different places don't move in unison so there is some room to trade markets and turn a profit.
Not sure any of this effects the point of the article though.