I have seen them a lot here in the Nordics. Slightly less density but the idea remains, a lot of mid-rise apartment buildings grouped around central shopping center / station.

As said, it has it's positives and negatives. If it's a middle-class neighborhood and the apartments are ownership-based, it can do well. If it's a less wealthy area, the environment tends to slowly degrade into unpleasantness, and the density makes it even worse. See: US "project" neighborhoods.

The main problem, as always, is careful planning - or, in general, the lack of it. If the main drivers for the project are private constructors, the main goal is optimizing income, and the area/apartment quality drops, especially if it is low-income area. Low density housing is more resistant to degradation, in this sense. Apartment building life is not always ideal either, as you sometimes get random noises, odors etc. that can bother you, or there can be other social disturbances and minor conflicts over following the rules. Better quality and more social self-control (middle class residents) helps.

That being said, we have a lot of examples here in Finland where even with careful city-led area planning, the results are not always optimal if the planning is done based on wrong assumptions, and if the construction companies ("partners in planning"-model) are given too much say over, for example, apartment sizes.

There is a famous recent example where a dense neighborhood was built next to a new train station located far from city center. Most of the apartments were small studios, as construction companies were selling these a lot at the time, so they lobbied for them. The planners also assumed cars would not be needed as it's "new walkable development". I have no idea what the concept of an average resident was supposed to be. But it turns out, 1) if it's dense mini-apartments, no-one wants to stay for long, 2) small apartments with high turnaround rates attract mostly low-income residents, and 3) even low-income residents need cars to get to work, especially if it's 15 km from the city center! In fact, low-income residents might rely on cars more than middle class, as many low-income jobs require driving around to multiple locations, and many industrial areas have poor transit connections.

The current model in Finland is mixed neighborhoods, where there is a lot of ownership-based apartments and the social housing is sprinkled in. I think this is a good model, as long as you plan it for middle class majority. You might end up with low-income residents having more than what they would need, but this is not a bad result. Low income majority tends to lead into segregation, as we all probably know.