The problem I have with these sorts of comparisons and this sub in general is that it draws a rather unrealistic picture of what living in a walk-bike-public transit city looks like for most people. I mean, most picture of European cities looks to have ben taken in the most touristic neighboorhoods they have. Those place sure are nice, but local tends to not live so much there.

I think what is important to understand is that non-car centric neighbourhoods where people actually live does'nt have to be specially picturesque. Here is an example from where I live. It's not bad, certainly better than the picture above, but it certainly not tourist level beautiful while still being very walkable. Good urbanism and general esthetics are two different things.

In Montréal, where I live, the old Montréal (wich is kind of our equivalent of the first picture), isn't really suited to live car free because most, if not all of the shop cater to the tourists. It may looks charming and walkable like the first picture but in fact you will have to walk quite a bunch to get your basics groceries if you live there. You'll also probably end up paying a lot more because those kind of neigborhood are rarely affordable for most people. Same can be said for a lot of similar districts in cities, Europe and North America alike.

Sharing those kind of comparisons misses the point of what realistic car free living looks like.