The fact that the Evening Standard's property section is now running features about "good-value homes within cycling distance of the office" is good news for cycling as a cause, but perhaps not so good if you're just a normal self-interested cyclist.
Back in the good old days when cycling in London was a freakishly unusual thing to do, whether some place was within cycling distance of the City or not didn't affect its valuation much because there weren't enough cyclists for it to matter. So if you happened to be one of that small number of cyclists you enjoyed a quick commute without having to pay a price premium for it.
But now that cycling has become popular enough in Inner London for even estate agents to notice, "within cycling distance" has become a saleable feature and accordingly comes with a price tag. Given enough cyclists, things like infrastructure quality will start affecting prices too: if someone builds a great bike lane from your flat to the City then more people will want to move there to avail of it, overall market demand will go up and so will the property value.
Now, if you use the bike lane enough you might think the higher price is still worth it. And if you already own a flat in the area you might be pleased too, even if you don't use the bike lane, because your property value just went up. But tenants who don't cycle will be worst off as they'll see their rent go up for no benefit.
This kind of concern is why people sometimes campaign against what others see as entirely benign neighbourhood improvements, and it's what motivates polemics like this one against "livability" defined in terms of supposedly ephemeral amenities like bike lanes rather than the more 'real' livability concerns of jobs, transport and housing.
Campaigns against bike lanes can seem fairly insane, and to be honest sometimes they are, but sometimes they are part of a wider struggle over processes of neighbourhood change, gentrification and displacement. Advocates of livability improvements generally don't intend to displace anyone, but in my view it is irresponsible to not at least consider these price effects and the likely social consequences.
Displacement is not inevitable, though. Higher housing demand can be offset by higher housing supply, moderating or even eliminating the price impact while enabling more people to enjoy these new amenities. Of course, people tend to be hostile to new housing supply in their area so campaigners usually choose to avoid the topic, but there's really no getting away from the market dynamics. If you make a place more attractive without making it possible for more people to live there, prices will go up and people will get displaced. Is that really what you want?