If you’re interested in the more recent counter-movement trying to roll back some of these mistakes, see the Charter for the New Urbanism: https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charter-new-urbanism
(B) manicured like a plywood subdivision to maximize resale value, at the expense of freedom to add on and be playful, cf Daniel Pinkwater's classic book "The Big Orange Splot"
(C) homogenized by high design prefabricators "because people don't mind having identical phones if the phones are cheap but good, so, people won't mind having identical homes on that basis either"
(D) unwalkably sited
(E) arrayed in vertical cul-de-sac residential stalks with no personal private space to sculpt at ground level or (F) mass-customized for them by AR/VR&cement-extrusion-robot-rental prefabricators and perhaps well-meaning building code officials who will find it much safer to pre-warranty the strength of such homes than try to verify the safety of people's own manually cobbled-together creations
I'd rather suggest that the downsides of B thru F can be avoided if (A) were pursued in the absence of economically, legally and politically marginal conditions that usually are its handmaiden and raison d'etre.
A neighborhood where everyone is well-housed but often inclined to iterate their physical surroundings and contribute to greater building skills and greater building beauty would be a pretty interesting environment in which to raise a family...
At least it can accommodate some form of mass transit, but it's even more anti-individualistic, soulless, and dehumanized than the US sprawl.
In both cases, those mistakes were the result of central planning. Most of them were fixed with the Aalborg charter, which reverted from central planning to a more organic, spontaneous growth with a bit of regulatory oversight.