I find it much preferable to retire with a mortgage (about 50% of the value of real estate) and the equivalent amount invested somewhere else, for three main reasons.
First it is generally possible to obtain higher return on your investment than the current mortgage interest rates; that is even more true if some of the return is tax-advantaged.
Second, I don’t want to become house-rich and cash-poor. Amortized real estate is very illiquid and cannot be used easily to pay bills or anything else. Invested capital can be partially sold if needed.
Third, when my heirs need to split my belongings, the mortgaged real estate will be a fraction the total wealth that can be attributed to a single heir. In contrast, a fully-amortized real estate object would be a larger fraction of total wealth, probably large enough that it cannot be given to a single heir; I see this as a complexity and possible risks of conflicts.