I can't find much information about Disney's original EPCOT plans, but I read a brief paragraph about how all of epcot's residents will live only in apartments---whether they be in highrises or detached single family units. There was to be no difference between "home" and "apartment."
Is there a reason for this? Pros and cons?
IMO, Epcot was supposed to be a city of the future, and its houses were to be built to easily accomodate new technologies. If everybody owned their home, they might potentially opt out of tech upgrades if it was expensive. But if the city owned every home, they could upgrade every house regardless since the costs to upkeep the city and to upgrade to new technologies would be "hidden costs" within the monthly rents the residents would pay.
That's just my reasoning...but I want to know if there was something more profound for having only apartments in a planned city. I sort of like that idea...to literally own and be the landlord of a metropolis!