But taking price out of the equation defeats the whole purpose. If you asked me where I want to live vs. where I would want to live if price were not a factor you would get two hugely different results. For example if you asked me if I wanted to live in Manhattan I would say no. If you asked me if I wanted to live in Manhattan if price was no consideration I would say HELL YEAH. Related to that I imagine plenty of people love the idea of living off in the countryside with nobody else around until they realize they have no way to make a living there.
Prices are good for this sort of thing because they are actual revealed preferences as opposed to abstract concepts and they are examples of people doing exactly what you want - weighing price, location, amenities, density, etc.
Your preferences are contrary to those of the larger sample of people polled who felt the exact opposite, they'd prefer to NOT live somewhere like Manhattan (or similar 'big city') but felt they wouldn't be able to find jobs there. The supply (or lack thereof) of jobs is the key constraint driving housing prices, not some innate desire to live in Manhattan level density. Basically they live in cities (and housing prices reflect that) because that's where they feel they need to be since employers have decided to centralize jobs, not because they
want to live there. If the preferences of
workers were allowed to take precedence over those of
employers then you'd be part of the 12% of so who preferred Manhattan and lived there and the majority would live in smaller cities like Richmond, VA or Lancaster, PA or the NYC suburbs.
If we conducted a thought experiment where federal law mandated telework wherever feasible, then you'd see a very prompt and abrupt emptying out of the NYC/DC/SF cities in favor of less dense places.