"Those big boxy structures are, frankly, more "efficient." They're simple, they use materials easy to mass-produce in regular shapes, and usually, you can convert those buildings for other uses-- offices into hospitals, for example."
I think you get the most "efficient" results through democratic, long-term planning. Those boxy, mass produced square blips have a very short life-span and I think something that has to be replaced every couple of generations is not what I'd call efficient. I just spent a week in southern Italy (Napoli) which mushrooms with this stuff and not only is it butt ugly, but they're all falling apart.
You probably can't mass-produce a house that lasts a few hundred years -- you probably have to pay a lot more attention to the local sustaining environment and the quality of the construction. But I submit that such a house is a lot more efficient cause you only have to build it once in a very great while. As for "boxiness" producing flexibility...when the "commies" appropriated the houses of the rich in Romania and converted them into day care centers, writer's retreats, restaurants, and schools, it all worked out very nicely. A half decent architect can solve most of those kind of problems.
No, I suspect that the boxiness had to do with producing the most with the least amt of investment..to get the most out. Not a good aesthetic formula.
Joanna