[kkfx]

I do not call "urban" being spread in nature... Mixing does not means being ATTACHED. I have a supermarket, a small shed covered with solar panels at less than one mile from my home but still far enough I do not hear trucks resupplying it, nor customers cars. There is a blacksmith as well, it's near the supermarket but far enough from other homes. There are some polluting factories but they are FAR enough away from all other homes. We are far more spread than a typical USA suburbs with all homes stitched aside but we still have to travel much less to live. It's definitively not urban since there is nature all around, no traffic, no transports except for rare trucks, school-buses etc easy to overtake anyways because even on mountains roads offer enough space nearly everywhere.

It's simply a spread area, where there is no need for traffic lights, tall buildings, downtown and so on, where you can both work (not only from/at home) and live. It offer the advantages of the urban model and of the rural model together and essentially none of disadvantages of both.

USA have enough ground to spread their population, so... Instead of getting the worse of "extreme" model (dense city of high rise on one side, empty areas with just nothing for many miles) you can get the best of both models, what's wrong with that?