I would, as a general principle, be cautious (in the sense of not being hasty) to dismiss in a manner reminiscent of Parkinson's law of triviality (insofar as t

I would, as a general principle, be cautious (in the sense of not being hasty) to dismiss in a manner reminiscent of Parkinson's law of triviality (insofar as the latter pertains to the bikeshed principle) the literary style of the article in question, since the common interpretation of excessive verbosity is flawed, in this case being seldom more than a preference with little in the way of any concrete justification that would be of direct relevance to the topic at hand, the topic being an architectural treatise. Any reservations about succinctness, or a perceived lack thereof, must therefore be qualified and left over for further analysis to draw proper and conceptually robust remarks given the evidence presented. (Yes, the writing style is somewhat obtuse. You'll have to excuse that. The topic itself is obscure, so I suppose it fits.)