People may have different definitions for "urban" and "suburban". Regardless of the words used, there is a huge difference between a city designed for walking and a city designed for people using vehicles (cars, public transport, bicycles).
It’s easy to see why it almost takes a completely different way of thinking, or “you got to see it for yourself”, before you can fully appreciate the little advantages it brings. The other way around is also true: I took me a while to understand the dependence that quite a few people have upon their car and/or public transport. Walking 10km is certainly a bit too much to ask, but common enough a distance to work or school, and very reasonable for the bicycle.
Dutch cities are designed for walking and bicycles. It helps that the bicycles are also designed for dutch cities. Upright, comfortable, a bit heavy and slow, and can be locked up for short times without needing to be locked to anything.
People often use bicycles in cities because they are convenient and as fast as or faster than driving a car or using public transport. That is the reason why bicycles should be grouped with other vehicles and not with walking.
Your assertion shows that you have never visited a Dutch city.
Most Dutch cities were originally designed for walking (they are old, at least in the core), then (like most places) the car took over in the 30s - 70s, but since the 70s there's been a concerted effort to re-establish bicycle supremacy, along with strong public transport.
The outcome is that pretty much everyone (including the elderly) cycle everywhere because it's most convenient. And walk around perfectly fine once you've parked your bike. And if you need to go a bit further afield when you're done? Jump back on the bike.
The hybrid of public transport/bike/walking works incredibly well, everyone co-exists perfectly, without making any compromises. Obviously, this wouldn't happen without there having had been a concerted effort to build good multi-modal infrastructure nationwide for the last ~50 years, but it really pays off. The urban environment is really nothing like pretty much anywhere else.
The latter is more apparent in old roads and areas where there's no clear distinction between road and sidewalk, where cars are generally not allowed but bicycles are. Watching for cyclists feels like playing Frogger at times. Also cases where cyclists just ignore pedestrians and expect priority, when it is obvious pedestrians have priority (zebra crossings, traffic lights).
The above does illustrate why cities made for walking alone and cities made for walking and cycling would or should differ.
It seems more appropriate to me to say: You can't optimise a city for both walking and bicycles. You can certainly design it for both (and even public transport and cars), with the necessary trade-offs.
But while people ride bikes in both areas, it's a bit absurd for the article at hand to call Almere the "future of urban living".
Almere is not the future of living. A over-the-top clickbait title does not negate valid statements either.