Well, actually, they're not both okay, because one is objectively wrong. It's objectively wrong to say that we come out ahead financially by living in a co-op, when we in fact objectively come out worse. This is a math equation. If Option A comes with price tag $X and Option B comes with price tag less-than-$X, there's a right and a wrong answer as to what costs more.
I do see what you're saying here. You're saying that
you pay more in this nonmarket housing than
you might pay elsewhere (which would also disqualify you for the proposed purist subforum, no?).
This is definitely true for many of us. We pay more for any given housing situation than to live in a L'Arche home, for example. It's not crazy to spend some money on housing, but we can acknowledge that we're spending unnecessarily.
It can also be true that we're spending more than actually necessary to have luxury/preferences while
also being true that we're getting a skookum deal.
Some of us are saying you pay
less for this nonmarket housing than you would for the
equivalent in market housing (space, location, amenities, city).
This is how both are correct -different things are being compared. It's always okay for people to explore varying aspects and angles of a matter.
Like so many here, you do a great job with saving and most spending, and seeing the various angles doesn't take away from that.