I made the exact same transition in late 2020, but I went 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 because my old monitor was toast. The 27" one felt considerably bigger but I wouldn't call it "much bigger."
Yeah, a 27" 16:9 should be close to the same height as a 24" 16:10, so it's mostly just wider. I have a good idea of what to expect there.
My main concern is the sizing of the picture itself due it's resolution relative to its size. My current display is just shy of 95 PPI whereas a 27" at 2560 x 1440 would be closer to 109 PPI so things are going to get a bit smaller, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. I know scaling exists, but I would like to avoid that if I can. I need to see if I can find some in person to get a better idea of things. Maybe it won't be quite as much smaller as I'm thinking.
I certainly have (more than) enough room for a 30" if I need to go with that, and that would keep me closer to the same PPI/sizing I have now (presuming a 1440p resolution), though it's starting to push higher on the size than I want, even if I can fit it. 32" is probably larger than I want. Keep in mind I'm referring to 16:9 aspect ratios here; I'm not at all interested in wider.
Don't know how it works outside gaming but in gaming, 16:9 is superior to 16:10, unless we are talking some rare/ancient titles. Also better for YT and movies.
The benefits of 16:9 are definitely there for media (games and video) but that's about it. The desktop, applications, and even browsers are all better off on 16:10 (if marginally).
What was good about the 16:10 versions of 1080p and 1440p was they were the "same" resolution but had additional vertical estate, so you could easily chose to run 1080p or 1440 on a 1200p or 1600p displays respectively. It would of course crop it (unless you stretched it for whatever reason) which would result in some unused space ("Black bars") at the top and bottom, but that never bothered me; a fair bit of media is wider than 16:9 anyway and even shows that Black unused space on 16:9 too. You effectively had both displays in one. But most people with 16:10 displays probably chose to use the 16:10 resolution in games and media since the (~10%) higher detail level was probably preferable over 10% real estate to the sides (just added FOV).
I'd prefer 16:10 but I'd be okay with either at this point because 1440p would be a nice increase (and would give the bonus of more real estate and the wider aspect ratio for media).
P.S. 32" ain't too much if your desk allows for 120+ cm (47") eye-to-display distance. Size of things is the subject to tuning, you can change the scaling in both Windows and Linux. Some software become abominations because devs didn't consider non-100% OS UI scaling but that's not as bad as it was 8 years ago. Highly recommend considering 4K if you go 32". Especially if you don't mind having relatively low FPS in games.
4K isn't a consideration to me at all.
I want to avoid having to entirely rely on scaling, and 4K on 32" isn't happening without it.
I am also not willing to fund the costs for not only the display but the much more expensive and frequent graphics cards needs to drive that. As it is, I'm perhaps going to be pushing it at times (at least compared to what I'm used to now) for 1440p/higher refresh. Being on 1200p and a lower refresh rate has allowed me to get away with a lot less on the GPU side.
And no melting connectors... 
