When dealing with a dam, however, curved surfaces are preferred. 
I like the idea of a landing fear structure, it has a lot of potential IMO.
Snail has a point.
Dams are curved because the load of water pressure is spread evenly on the surface.
Arch structure can withstand higher even load than a rectangular structure - this is why long bridges, aqueducts and viaducts and all vault structures utilize the arch form. Both suspended and non-suspended bridges are usually built with archs as the carrying structure - either a rigid arch that the walkway or driveway is laid on top of, or arcs of cables which suspend the bridge itself.
Shorter bridges can be built as horizontal beam bridges, but archs are required for longer bridges.
This is more about how objects of different shape handle when laid on a flat surface, so let's make an example.
Let's compare two objects made of thin metal: a cube of 1 m^2 volume, and a sphere of 1 m^2 volume.
Both objects are filled with water, making their mass approximately 1000 kg plus the mass of the metal itself.
The surface pressure between the cube and floor is 1000 kg * 9.81 m/s^2 / m^3, which is 9.81 kPa; By comparison, the ground pressure of a human is typically around 60 - 80 kPa while walking, more when running, and so the floor has no problems with this kind of stress. Furthermore there are practically no deforming forces subjected to the cube, so stress to the object itself is minimal.
On the other hand, surface pressure in the case of the sphere is infinite in case of ideal sphere, which means that the sphere will definitely distort at least some in order to get a non-zero contact area between the sphere and the floor. If we assume that the sphere deforms so that the round contact point is 2 cm^2 in area, that makes surface pressure as high as 49.050 MPa, which means that first of all the stress to the floor is higher, but also stress to the object itself is significant.
For these reasons, it would be best to use flat underside as the landing platform of an object as massive as an Ursa. Of course you could reduce artificial gravity on hangar decks but that'd present other complications, and any non-zero gravity will still mean flat underside of an object laid on surface will cause less stress on the surface and object both, compared to a case where the weight of the object is carried by smaller contact points.
I rest my case.
Also, angular pods are a pretty distinctive feature of the Ursa. Smoothing it out might make it look subjectively better, but that'd be the equivalent of giving A-10 a facelift because it's so bloody ugly... and still calling it the A-10 afterwards.
Whatever you do, though, as long as end result gives same overall impression as the Ursa, it'll work out.
