I disagree. A strong counterpoint is that rural and suburban infrastructure is impossible to financially support based on the limited tax base you get from them compared to dense neighborhoods. Much fewer people on the same amount of roads and sewer systems means spending way more per capita to maintain and build them. Way more than the tax base can provide, even. On top of that, neighborhoods that are spread out require more people to drive cars, which not only increases the maintenance burden, but also requires loads of parking lots at grocery stores. And none of that grocery store parking lot is going to generate the tax income required to pay for the infrastructure needed to travel there.

Beyond that, rural and suburban services are very heavily subsidized by federal and state grants, most of which comes from urban areas.

I would say that urban living in North America has two fatal flaws:

1. Housing prices (and other cost of living)

2. Incorrect city design based on cars.

High prices, especially for housing, increase the number of homeless and desperate people. This increases crime by a lot.

Car-centric design makes moving about a dense area very tedious for everyone, including car drivers. Urban design ought to be more centered on people throughout, which means pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit are treated with more priority than cars. Every city in North America is designed the complete opposite. Not only that, but cars are very noisy and dirty compared to other modes, making the urban area even worse.

At least the city design portion can have a huge benefit. A counterexample to your point is likely most cities in the Netherlands, like Amsterdam, which reportedly have very happy citizens and very people-centric design.

Plus, 83% of Americans choose (or need) to live in an urban area despite the flaws.

For more info on the financial aspect, this video and the others in the series are great: https://youtu.be/XfQUOHlAocY