The story is told in the first person by the same self-absorbed, conventionally attractive, twenty-something, blandly heterosexual, aggressively cisgendered, emotionally needy white woman. I am expected, as a reader, to sympathize with her because of her shoes or her clothes, of which she speaks often and sometimes at length, never mind if such clothing is usually not made for my body or that I may not even be able to afford such things. Because I identify female and so does she, it is expected that her material possessions will elicit a bond between us.

Yes. This. You also reminded me that often times these heroines are frequently able to afford or in the very least covet (from the perspective of potentially one day owning) x brand of stilettos, or some other material object, and that this classist bias is consistent throughout the genre. (I especially appreciated your point that's it's in part an attempt to create a bond with the female reader.) Even if they're portrayed as being "poor," they still manage to materialize guns or other weaponry, which would cost a small fortune to obtain legally OR illegally, and do not mention how they were able to do so.

I recently posted on urban fantasy, actually--it's in the context of Phillip Palmer's article on whether urban fantasy is all about sex, but there's also some discussion on UF as a genre, especially in the comments.