I do credit Culdesac for revealing exactly why developments like these aren't the answer.
1. The urbanists act like parking costs are driving up apartment prices, but any "cost savings" will go straight to developers. You're literally lowering your standards of living so your (((landlords))) will get a bigger paycheck.
2. You can't just put an upscale building in a shitty neighborhood and expect instant gentrification. This is most pronounced in SF, but it's nice to have a non-SF example. The reason why this is bad is you're expecting to have bicycles to be a main source of transportation, but bicycles are easy pickings for thieves, far more than cars are. Getting a locked car up and running without detection or causing damage (like smashing windows) requires a fair bit of technical know-how, while a good pair of bolt cutters can defeat most bicycle locks.
3. A market of true-believer car-free yuppies simply doesn't exist, much less support the nearby retail without outside traffic. Sorry--that pricey Mexican restaurant is already done for!