I find that to be a fairly insightful (at least partial) explanation of sprawl, especially in Canada (where freeways seem to have been relatively unpopular to b

I find that to be a fairly insightful (at least partial) explanation of sprawl, especially in Canada (where freeways seem to have been relatively unpopular to begin with) and in the US after the freeway "revolt" of the 70s. The US Interstate system and freeways into previously undeveloped land to create new suburbs near large cities would certainly fall under even your definition of "car-centric" design (and this could, arguably, be seen happening in Southern California to this day), but it doesn't in much of Canada. I do expect some of the design is driven by a desire by citizens to live in low density (the "to each his own" idea brought up elsewhere in the thread), and it stands to reason that people attracted to suburbs would generally be those low-density seekers and would thereby encourage more of that kind of development. However, that seems insufficient an explanation for a stand-alone town of a few thousand, that isn't a suburb of a nearby city. Is building "out" really cheaper than building "up" a couple stories? Maybe it's simpler than that, and city folk fail to understand that small enough towns are actually rural, without central sewage treatment, and every building needing substantial open space for a leach field. Even when centralizing becomes cost-effective, it may only be applicable for new growth, and it will still need land (and of a certain kind).