Read on Twitter
Sure, designs like these have to do with aesthetics - the structures add visual mass and volume to the build without blocking off light, and it also helps maintain a consistent roof line between neighboring buildings.
But on the real, think about how much easier it is for an architect to project such a square build on paper, versus something more organic, like Hadid's builds.
There are, of course, fundamental structural differences between building with curves vs straight lines. These insights are also very old, the oldest I know of being half a millennium back, in Da Vinci's time, though structural engineering has gone next level since then.
All this in mind, though, humans will be inclined to do simpler things. And using pen and paper as a medium, straight lines are a lot more compelling than crazy organic structures with unpredictable bends and curves, especially if they have to be projected in 3D.
Obviously, computers aid with this quite a lot. The overarching idea is this - the tools we use are both catalysts and impediments to our creative processes. The buildings of our past look the way they do because they were the easiest to think of, and subsequently construct.
(There's supposed to be a Heidegger reference in this tweet but I'm too deep into CAD software right now to get philosophical, so I'll just toss in a reference to @nosilverv's great thread) https://twitter.com/nosilverv/status/1229741382425862145
The buildings of the future, however, will likely not be either designed or constructed by humans, which will completely eliminate the "toolness" from the latent space of possible buildings, meaning we're in for a very strange ride.
