It's tempting to blame the shift entirely on developers cheaping-out (which, of course, is part of it), but there have also been changes in technology over time (as mentioned above), such as the panelized modular brick facade systems that didn't exist at the time of some of the older developments listed. How could folks be so sure what solution would have been chosen then, had the newer alternatives existed? Also, there are probably economies of scale associated with the modern panelized solutions, whereas it makes sense to employ those if the building is above a certain size, but does not for very small buildings.
At risk of being too redundant on this thread, I have physically seen full-size individual bricks being hand-laid at numerous developments that also used modular solutions to some extent in concert, such as at Prism apartments in Cambridge. There's a ton of hand-laid brick there, integral with more efficient methods.
At aB, we have a tendency to critique cheap-seeming building systems/materials as we observe them in their incomplete state, whereas the real critique should be the finished product, which depends as much on implementation and craft as category of material/system chosen. For instance, not every 5-on-1 building is created equal, but aB always craps on those. You can spend a ton of money on materials and do a crap job with implementation and it's not any better than cheap materials.