It should be called the place with trees and loosely densely population that would be okay if cars weren't so ubiquitous because some people like space but let's make sure not to exclude minorities so people don't end up racist.
This is not true? Lots of urban areas can sprawl, not least because of car centric planning (big car parks between islands of actual land use; roads built to ease the traffic of roads; urban 'islands' of tall and dense occupation connected by road with slivers of green in-between that don't serve to actually offer a natural environment. Kuala Lumpur features all of these, for example) but also as economic centres decline and become disused and new developments in other areas spread.
Especially they sprawl when the developers are allowed to do as they please. They want the most profitable option, which is barren and opposed to what people and local government usually want
Where I live, rich urban areas have plenty of trees and frequently get more planted around. Meanwhile, poorer areas receive zero trees because "they don't have trees to receive maintenance".
Despite what you might think of Skynyrd, they cover this topic in a relatable way. Arcade Fire also covers it kind of. Sorry for the links but I'm a huge music nerd.
Around here, sprawl is a major issue. We have some of the most fertile soils in the world, and we pave over them without regard. It's abhorrent. I don't make the 'most fertile soils' comment lightly - this is my area of expertise, professionally. The only other places I can think of that have better soil quality than where I live are Russia and the Ukraine.
I think they're amazing musicians and lyricists who held regressive viewpoints on certain issues which were more socially acceptable in their bygone era.