Comparing European cities/suburbs to American ones is pretty pointless though,
Well no, not really. There are certain differences, but the process of suburbanisation in America and the U.K have been very similer, with one major exception (ie; state planned suburbanisation through the construction of New Towns and so on, with the deliberate objective of getting people out of the inner cities).
Not at all; most of the big industrial cities in Europe grew up around the same time as the industrial cities did in America. Philadelphia is clearly an older city than Bradford (which was a little village until the 19th century and which only got city status in the 1890's) and is in many ways older than a lot of industrial cities and large towns over here.
The ages of Pittsburgh and Sheffield *as major urban centres* are freakishly similer.
You don't think we have sprawl as well?
Why?
But it's also seen as unsafe, as cramped, as polluted... etc, etc.
Because you can't really have your own house in the central part of a city. People want space (that's the main reason for suburbanisation after all).
A lot of people work in suburbs here as well. But still over 300k people are in the CBD of our largest city in the day than at night. Commuting from a commuter-suburb into the CBD is especially common with people who have jobs in finance o/c.
Besides, you can't have suburbs without a city, because the suburbs are fundamentally part of the city... hell commuter villages are fundamentally part of the city as well...
