There's some truth to what you're saying. Even the smallest apartment I've ever had was big enough to dedicate space to some serious hobbies, and it was (at that time) very inexpensive to rent compared a much smaller place in a more-dense area.
My lifestyle isn't very compact because it has never needed to be compact. Compactness isn't a common expectation 'round these parts. I have space to keep collections of stuff that I find interesting, and to make use of it.
There's tradeoffs to this lifestyle, though. The corner store is only a short walk away, but it mostly just sells beer, soda, and smokes. There's no walking to get something like groceries, or a new shirt (or a used shirt, for that matter). There isn't much for local entertainment. It's 15 miles to the next-largest city, and there's zero public transportation aside from the buses that get kids to/from school.
(It's hard to imagine that there aren't areas of the UK that are of similar form, though, with roomy housing, space for things, and with very limited services and/or options for commerce nearby.)
There are certainly places with very limited services! As for roomy houses, though, that is much harder to find. I did a little searching and found a UK govt report on housing sizes [1]. For a point of comparison, average house size broken out by house type is smaller for all types than the average across all house types for Missouri [2; taken as a random exemplar of the Midwest]. Only when we break out to detached houses built in particular time periods (p.18) does the average become roughly equal to Missouri, and remember this is across all housing in Missouri (IIUC).
The UK settlement pattern is quite weird. About 1/6 of the population lives within the South-East, which is roughly the area commutable to London by train. Then another 1/6 of the population lives in London. So land is very expensive there. The rest of the UK is on average a lot poorer. So the UK in general is not conducive to large housing. You can certainly find old farm houses out in the sticks, and small villages that are mostly expensive large houses. These are a tiny fraction of the housing, though. I believe UK houses are on average the smallest in Europe. (I think the UK would benefit a lot from some decentralisation, but that's a different topic. Side eye in cancelled HS2 lines.)
There is indeed one grocery store remaining here. This particular town is lucky in that way: Over the past couple of decades it has gone from 3 or 4 grocery stores to 1, instead of from 1 or 2 to 0 like many surrounding communities.
In terms of choice: No, not really. The housing market is very tight these days. So for now, at least: While I must live somewhere, I don't necessarily get to live where I want. I must instead make do with living where I can (and I suppose optionally also maintain hope for a better day tomorrow).
There's some truth to what you're saying. Even the smallest apartment I've ever had was big enough to dedicate space to some serious hobbies, and it was (at that time) very inexpensive to rent compared a much smaller place in a more-dense area.
My lifestyle isn't very compact because it has never needed to be compact. Compactness isn't a common expectation 'round these parts. I have space to keep collections of stuff that I find interesting, and to make use of it.
There's tradeoffs to this lifestyle, though. The corner store is only a short walk away, but it mostly just sells beer, soda, and smokes. There's no walking to get something like groceries, or a new shirt (or a used shirt, for that matter). There isn't much for local entertainment. It's 15 miles to the next-largest city, and there's zero public transportation aside from the buses that get kids to/from school.
(It's hard to imagine that there aren't areas of the UK that are of similar form, though, with roomy housing, space for things, and with very limited services and/or options for commerce nearby.)