To think that a flat in a good area is better than a house in a bad one?

[Readr]

A friend is thinking of buying property and has the money (with a mortgage) to get either a flat in a relatively good area, or a house in a sh*tty one (drugs, high crime and anti-social behaviour, several generations unemployed kind of bad area). I get it that with a flat you are forever tied to service charges and lease, while a house is freehold, but still, in this situation AIBU to think that a flat in a better area would be a better choice?

I am in a 1930s flat in an expensive area. I would go for flats with share of freehold or where the flat freehold is owned by residents (even if your own is leasehold) so there is more control over costs. Thinking of upsizing to a bigger flat instead of a house in a worse area (as worse area would come with higher transport costs for DH and I). And transport costs are higher than reasonable service charges.

I would get the house every time

We have a house in what was a shitty area 15 years ago and is now much nicer with good cafes and shops. It's great having the house and the garden.

I have lived in flats that I bought, I have lived in houses that I bought...the key to happy or unhappy outcomes in both has always been the neighbours. I strongly advise anyone thinking of buying to sit outside 'dream' property weekdays, weeknights and weekends...get a jist of the parking issues, the neighbours noise and how much traffic passes by. If brave, knock on the next door neighbours door for a little chat about the area and to get an idea of who they might be.

Could she buy a flat with a share of freehold?