Buy or not buy the major factor come from TS financial ability.

Whether it is LH and FH is a secondary issue. If same property one is LH with 1xxK while FH at 2xxK or 3xxK, then if one is having problem or full stress to pay the the loan on the FH, LH might be a better choice.

The first criteria of buying a property is always about cashflow and financial ability, not LH or FH.

For sure every one also want FH if both at same price, but we know, it is impossible. FH properties generally come with premiun.

After all, after 70 years, I don't think the apartment/condo will be valuable disregard it is FH or LH, as high rise building after 30 years or longer time or so, generally value is not that good already. Unlike double storey landed houses, the valuable part of the properties come from its land, not is house, as next buyer can always rebuild it, while highrise building cannot.

LH can be no different than rent for xx years or the LH tenure. But rent a house to live is not as bad as we think of. If rent a house can result in better cash management and able to save much more each month than buying a house, then it might be good and suit to a particular person

Also after 70 years, for sure, I no longer around.

Hope you make up a wise decision based on financial ability.

In term of ROI, a lot of time,
FH and LH makes not much different actually, some LH properties may be more valuable or appreciate more than FH because of location.

Unless the LH left short LH tenure, like 30 years or so then may be, but if reaching that stage, LH properties should be quite cheap though.

It is always a trade off between FH and LH. FH may be more valuable but you may pay high premium. While LH is may not that valuable, but you pay cheaper than FH counterpart.
So we can't say which is good or bad just based on LH and FH.

70 or 99 years, we won't be around anymore.