Thanks for commenting and I agree with you for the most part. I'm a big believer in geographic determinism, and Europe's discrete cultures emerged largely as a result of geographic barriers that allowed cultures to develop relatively unsullied by a steady influx of new peoples and their imported cultures. But the big thing is that most of Europe was planned pre-car. The only countries with sprawl at scale are the US, Canada, and Australia, whose populations and infrastructures mostly developed in the mid-20th century. In Europe, instead of tacky, cookie-cutter suburbs surrounding European capitals, there are historic villages and small towns with their own centers (some of this can be said of New England, though to a much lesser extent). And while rich Europeans will drive to their McMaisons, it's far less common and less likely to be part of a architectural mono-culture, e.g. only large homes. But yeah, if Provence had empty tracts of land like Arizona, I don't doubt les Provencals would sprawl out, if economically feasible.

Speaking of economic feasibility, and my last point, it's worth noting that almost nothing about sprawl is paid outright. Homes, cars, and the education required to get a "good job" to afford those things--they're basically all paid for in debt notes, and US consumer debt is hovering around $17 trillion at the moment (that's on top of the Federal Debt, which is ~$35 trillion). As a country, the U.S. has been massively leveraging itself since at least the Reagan years, all while our tangible production (products, commodities, etc.) has all but evaporated. In fact, one of the few things the U.S. does make are McMansions and crappy apartments. There will have to be a reckoning, and when there is, Americans may be unable to afford the crap they're so attached to--the cars, big homes, shit food, etc.--but are making them and the rest of the world miserable.