In the past I asked a question about the environmental impact of the the US residential model. Some users replied that such residential model was inherited from the past, that it was too late to change it, and on that ground they closed the question which was later deleted by the community bot. Today reading the answers to another question I found out that the claim was not true. The residential model based on widespread low density suburbs is maintained because it is enforced by the current planning regulations.
Such residential model has a huge impact on the environment and on the housing cost, but on mainstream media there is absolutely not a comment or a hint on its role on the current situation. Back then I took as an example the effort made by this article to avoid to talk about the real cause of the problem. Furthermore the first article I linked begins with a lot of disclaimers as if the writers were scared to talk about an extremely delicate issue. Why is it so touchy? Why no other state except California is discussing a change of such regulation?
By "low-density residential model", I mean the widespread presence of low-density neighbourhoods. For such neighbourhoods, public transport is inefficient, therefore city authorities do not invest a lot on it and people are forced to rely on the private car. I know as @Joe W wrote "it varies depending on the area of the country", but on average this model is prevalent in the and the US citizens on average depend on the private car a lot more that a European or Asian citizen. This is also reflected on the per capita energy consumption in the US. (and also in the housing cost).
My question asked why in many articles on mainstream media I often notice that the argument is carefully avoided. The BBC article I linked is a perfect example. I was not asking about negative a positive aspects because that was part of another question. I added later the third paragraph just because the apparently malformed question immediately attracted close votes. But I didn't go into the details, I didn't even mention other points like excessive energy consumption for heating and cooling or cost and quality of utilities infrastructure. So user wanting to answer wheter a model is better than the other are requested to open another question.
The answer by @Levi Montgomery claims that there is no problem discussing the argument, but the type and volume of comments received by both questions suggests otherwise. Furthermore if someone asks why people accept with little discussion this housing model and the reply is "Why exactly should we be cramming people into a small area" as commented by @Joe W it means that some people do have a problem with it. Behind the harsh reply it is even stating the usual misconception that the only alternative to low density neighbourhoods are the concrete jungles. The high density model includes infinite different models that go from the concrete jungle to the model based on high rises separated by wide green spaces. But judging from the comments few Americans understand it and the fact that they talk very little about it is probably one of the reasons why it is so easy to trap the people in such a narrow view. BTW such narrow view was also stated in the poll linked by @Fizz in his answer, look closely at the questions of the poll, rather than being question they are statements. Again they are stating that high density housing means packing buildings together.
In the answer and the now deleted comments by @Jim I noticed another common misconception: that the crime rate depends on the housing model and ethnicity, not on factors like unemployment and education. This also shows that the limited view US citizens have on the argument.
The answer by @Levi Montgomery is extensive, but still something is missing. In a country of a population of more than 300 million people I guess there are dozens of millions of homeowners, do they really form such a compact single minded group? I read several times about people who were forced to buy a house bigger than what they needed because after relocating for their job they couldn't find anything else. I even heard someone complaining because they had to buy a house with a garden, working long hours they didn't have time to enjoy the garden, but they had to pay someone to clean it and maintain it. But when it comes to talking about the housing model nothing of this is mentioned.