[caturopath]

I don't see what the size of the country has much to do with how we get around in town.

No pedestrians or bicyclists die on I-95, and few motorists do to boot. The issue is with cars inside cities, not the space between them. Of course you get between cities with cars, long-distance busses/trains, and flying.

[AnimalMuppet]

The size of the country (relative to the population) means that land is relatively cheap. That leads to relatively less dense cities (at least most of them).

[imtringued]

Land isn't cheap if you have to maintain infrastructure around it. Exclusive single family zoning is a pure loss. Single family housing should exist but it should be reserved for those who really want/need it. It's not something everyone should have because it doesn't match people's real needs.

[caturopath]

Sprawl isn't a natural result of a large country, nor is US land unbelievably cheap (it's all over the place, with some expensive peaks in some high-sprawl areas).

Belize and Norway are extremely low density overall in their countries: they have very different house prices, but neither has much sprawl.

Sprawl is a result of policy decisions.

[cycomanic]

I would say the bay area is a pretty good counter argument.