I think the big negative for me about the US is that it’s hard to find walkable area that are good for living in with a family (functional, properly run, safe, good schools, affordable). I know people who live in downtown urban areas which do have things within walking distance and some public transit, but these areas are not very safe and the schools are often pretty awful. Places like SF are very overpriced too. If I had to live in the US, I think I would probably end up living in a suburban area to escape bad schools and social problems, and my experience of US suburbs is that you drive everywhere.
Of course, it depends what people like. If people are happy with a suburban lifestyle, they will probably love a US suburb - they are safe and very spacious with big houses and cars and yards.
One more point: the “have to drive everywhere” thing is nothing to do with the size of the US. The US had walkable cities with trains and trams before cars became widespread. A decision was made in most US cities from the 1920s onwards to knock down much of the old cityscapes and replace it with car-centric infrastructure, resulting in huge car-centered cities.
To be fair, at least the US approach makes sense. The UK approach has basically been “We don’t want to knock down any old buildings to put in huge car parks or tear up neighborhoods for expressways, and we want to keep our cities small via green belt laws…..but we also want to drive everywhere and we don’t want to restrict cars or invest in public transport.” So the UK has ended up with way too many cars and car journeys crammed into a road/parking network that is not even remotely adequate, resulting in cities where neither cars nor public transport works properly.