Psychology: Many of us hate the idea that someone behind us might be looking at us, our screen, our work. That there may be someone walking behind us that we know. That the sound of footsteps behind you might be your boss, or a colleague you'd like to chat with. It might be anyone, and there's some desire to want to find out to get closure.
Open offices are okay if they're part of a range of choices. I enjoy working in open offices sometimes. Sometimes it drives me nuts and there's no escape. That's not okay. There must be balance and there must be options.
For example, semi-open is a great start, because it means sound doesn't bounce around in one big space of 60 people, but rather only in the space of 10, and gets limited in sound/light traveling due to e.g. plants, windows etc.
If there are meeting rooms to meet or organise calls, that means the high-impact activities can be separated. If there are team-rooms, it means you can collaborate without impacting people who you don't work with 9/10 times, while you can still seek them out in their team room or meeting rooms, or an open-space setting you happen to be in for part of the week, if you do want cross-team collaboration.
The idea that teamwork flows best by putting everyone in one giant cage without caring for sensitivity to sound and human psychology, is a joke that in any other field would be seen as a bruteforce idiotic idea. Besides, the economics of non-open offices aren't wildly different with the right approach. Sound-proofing to turn a giant area into a set of large areas by installing some glass has barely any impact on cost, but is already a semi-open improvement. There's lots of good ideas on the spectrum of every desk in a cubicles vs all desks on a giant football field, it's not one or the other and you need to provide balance and options.