The importance of Federalist 57 is it was written in response to Brutus 4 which appeared a couple of months earlier.
Of possible reasons to oppose the Constitution, how could anyone, on quiet reflection, find a House of Representatives so objectionable? The House mirrored state assemblies in purpose and was little different in numbers of constituents per representatives from state senators. Due largely to difficulties of travel, terms were for two years rather than the preferred one. How could Brutus claim that the reps could not represent their constituents when the qualifications of the electors were identical to those of state assemblies? Finally, Brutus states that representatives of the people were an absolute necessity, then makes unsubstantiated claims that the people cannot be represented at all. Huh?
No, the purpose of Yates/Brutus was obvious, to throw sand in the gears of Constitutional ratification by opposing each and every clause, no matter how logical or necessary to correct the impotent Articles of Confederation. I suspect he lost the confidence of many readers with his wild-eyed accusations. Of reasons to question the Constitution, the existence and composition of the House was not one of them. Brutus was opposed to the House of Representatives because it represented a “Great Compromise” between small and large states which held the Constitutional Convention together at an early date and allowed the delegates to continue their deliberations.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus04.htm
True. According to Ralph Ketham's spreadsheet, Brutus #4 prompted Federalists #27, #28, #52, #53, #54 and #57.