My issue with the article is that it is: 1) Making purely aesthetic arguments 2) In several cases I feel that the "bad" architecture is aesthetically more app

My issue with the article is that it is: 1) Making purely aesthetic arguments 2) In several cases I feel that the "bad" architecture is aesthetically more appealing than the "good architecture. For example, when the author discusses how "secondary masses should never compete with the primary mass"; what that seems to mean in practice is "ugly, squat, lumpen buildings are good; interesting, attractive silhouettes are bad". No doubt the author would disagree with my characterisation, but then, that's sort of the point. It feels very subjective. Of all the examples given, the one I unambiguously agreed with was the one where none of the windows styles matched.