Right, so instead of simply moving to the place where they can have the lifestyle they want, they should suck it up and buy a car like good Americans.

I think he/she was responding to the post that compared suburbs to ghettos. That's no more useful than me saying the same thing about living in a big city. Suburbs and city can both have perfectly good quality-of-life, regardless of preference, neither is a ghetto.

I know you're responding to a different comment, but I want to clarify that I am not claiming that suburbs are unreasonable places to live.

OP said that they didn't want to live in a suburb, which is a reasonable view to have. I don't want to live in one either.

That doesn't make much sense. A bike oriented life should be the more affordable, more attainable lifestyle than the car lifestyle.

High rents in a bikeable city center can wipe out the savings you get from not owning a car.

My car-related expenses per month for two commuting drivers are $100 insurance, $150 in gas, and maybe $100 depreciation and maintenance. My cars are old and are not a fashion statement by any means. I would have to pay much more than $350 to get the same amount of house near city center. I would also sacrifice the ability to conveniently go long distances.

I guess that is my point. How backwards is it that living without a car in a small apartment is MORE expensive than living with multiple cars in a large house.

Not at all. Cars are technology; land is land. Our society is highly optimized to promote the availability of ever-cheaper, ever-better technology, and also to make sure that real estate assets continuously appreciate.

We should certainly expect a lifestyle based around consumer goods mass-produced under mature and technologically advanced industrial capitalism to be cheaper (and get cheaper over time) relative to a lifestyle based on around living on the most central, premium land.