I have written numerous articles (for example, here and here) asserting that sprawl is in large part a creation of government: government-built highways that encouraged migration to suburbia, government-built streets that were dangerous for pedestrians to cross, and zoning laws that enshrined automobile dependence by mandating single-use, low-density development with ample supplies of parking. Thus, suburbanites are just as dependent on government as urbanites: they drive on government-provided roads and park on government-mandated parking lots near government-widened streets, while the prestige of their communities depends on the prestige of government-provided schools. 

But an acquaintance of mine raised an interesting counterargument  He suggested that even if compact development does not in fact make people more dependent on government, it leads to a perception of dependence: people who live closer together think of themselves as part of a collective, while people who live in semi-rural surroundings think of themselves as rugged individualists. As a result, suburbanites are more likely to favor leaner government.

This argument does have some basis in reality: it is true that rural places tend to be more politically conservative than urban ones. But on the other hand, suburbanization does not seem to have created a more libertarian society. If this alleged libertarian psychology actually affected the growth of government, government would have gotten smaller as society suburbanized—especially in the late 20th century, when cities declined most rapidly.