Well, I've lived in a not entirely dissimilar place. But also extremely different places (cities, small towns, apartments, and in different countries). I can't say I miss it. On the contrary, I really really dislike it. But I'll tell you why (long comment follows):

It's just a vast, spread out mass of homes. In the picture, you don't see any parks, playgrounds, schools, day-care centers, churches. Much less any shops, squares or natural meeting-places. You can walk to your neighbor, but that's about it. To get anywhere, to do almost anything, you need a car. Needless to say, any kind of mass transport is entirely out of the question. The houses are unremarkable, mass-produced and lacking in individuality. The yards are tiny, the houses are as packed together as possible. (Add to that the whole Nevada thing - it might not be that much fun in your yard)

Basically I feel this combines the worst-of-all-worlds, city-planning wise. If you live in an apartment in a city, you have no yard and no real individuality in your home, but you have high density. You can walk to stuff, you have mass-transit, you've got a live neighborhood outside your door. You'll have more neighbors than most would care for, though.

If you live out in a quite rural setting, you've got the same isolation in that you need to take a car everywhere. But then, at least you've got space, and probably a more unique home. You can still likely walk to your neighbor, although you'll have fewer of them.

If you live in a small town, or well-planned suburb, you can have both an actual house and things to do within walking distance, and mass transport at least for commuters from the town/suburb center to other places. You can have a sense of community, with an actual town-center where you have events, or just chance encounters.

That's what really bugs me. Not just the environmental and gas costs of this kind of construction, but this isolation between where you (and your neighbors) live and everything else. You feel like you're island-hopping between fixed locations: work/school/supermarket/shopping mall/home, with little chance (or is it risk?) of the unexpected or 'real world' intruding on it.

I don't feel it's the best way to live. Hardly the worst, but what I'm saying is that there's a better way, if you just have some actual planning. I believe stuff gets built like this simply in order to maximize profit. Buy cheap land, fit as many houses as you can on it, sell. Actually making it the best-possible place to live isn't a concern, at least not insofar it might hurt the bottom-line.

I'm not against suburbs at all, just this sprawl. High-density housing with the drawbacks of low-density, and none of its features. I've got nothing against automobiles either, but things should be planned to minimize their usage, not maximize it. In the 50's-60's, when they started building like this, gas was cheap and city planners (who'd grown up in the 1920's) still had the "driving is fun!" attitude. Today there are fewer excuses. It's just that it's become so common that people don't demand better.