https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Library_of_Birmingham_(32...
Edit:typos due to posting while phone is in a waterproof bag
This was a typical early 20th century worker housing project. It was pretty successful for the time - so much so it's now expensive and gentrified.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5114036,-0.2416956,3a,75y,...
Most people want to live in low-density human-scale housing with plenty of greenery. There's nothing complicated or difficult about this. The problem is that architects want to Make A Statement, and you don't do that by giving ordinary people what they want.
The problems that architects solve are much simpler.
Disclaimer - I studied architecture in university and then engineering, and I have a fine appreciation of art and good design but a poor opinion of most architectural theories, including the ones where they give themselves super powers while designing balconies or laying out kitchens.
Edit: Here's an example, Highland Dwellings in DC.
https://images1.apartments.com/i2/ydNxyNvVCntpdglekPc48HV9vv...
https://livingnewdeal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Highlan...
It is worth noting that a lot of these tower in the park type developments were demolished and replaced with mixed-income housing due to the problems. NYC is probably one of the last places where many of them are still standing (for lack of money to develop them, and also because there are about 600,000 people on the NYCHA waiting lists). But there was a huge federal pot of money for doing this in the '90s and '00s and many authorities did so.
From an architectural standpoint, the difference is that the British homes front the street, whereas your lowrise homes are perpendicular to it, and the towers in the park are generally pointed inward, away from the normal street grid. This has pretty bad effects on crime, because it removes the "eyes on the street" effect from passersby.
I'm a 90s kid and so was not familiar with anything but low-rise housing outside of old TV shows and grandfathered infrastructure; your timeline follows my experience, and also the general trend of halting progress on such issues of social justice, where the answer is and has long been known but is warped in execution by a continued, if lessening, marriage to clearly-incorrect-but-politically-attractive notions about what "those people" need and/or deserve.
(It was also a political marriage of convenience because in the '90s, railing against welfare was in vogue, and HOPE VI generally did not result in 1:1 replacement of public units, so it was a backdoor way to reduce the population on welfare.)
I don't really think the issue is density. Plenty of low traffic, low density suburban areas have high crime as poor people move into the suburbs; public housing had few eyes on the street because the design intentionally kept out passersby, and if anything suburban neighborhoods with high walking distances, mazelike streets and inconvenient, unpleasant walking environments are more extreme than that, and also have lower amounts of residents to boot. At least in NYC (and probably true of a lot of very inner-city housing projects) the towers in the park usually replaced existing urban neighborhoods at far lower densities than what had previously existed, because so much of the land was just idle greenery (that usually wasn't useful, in the form of small, segmented lawns often fenced off). Compare that with, say, Vienna, where the masses are housed in public housing in large midrise (5-10 story) buildings.
Coincidentally, this large midrise form factor is also what dense gentrifier buildings look like in many cities around the US, from Seattle to DC.
But Le Corbusier tried to cancel every architectural movements before him.
Ecole de Royan is a nice example of an architecture that is also inspired by Brutalism and the Bauhaus movement, but done in a much more humane and artsy way.
In fact, many of the proponents of this school of thought are going as far as considering that the constraint of having people living in their space is a hindrance preventing them to fully express their ideas.
Architecture is Politics, and Le Corbusier is embodying the worst ideas of the 20th century.
Also he had well documented sympathies for the Nazi regime.
What happened to Architecture in the 20th century is both sad and instructive about the risks of abusive modernity.