The disdain in this article is surprising and disappointing. A more thorough analysis of why and how such a rule came to be and an investigation of its detrimen

The disdain in this article is surprising and disappointing. A more thorough analysis of why and how such a rule came to be and an investigation of its detrimental effects vs. positive aspects beyond "inefficient land use" would have been more interesting. They also completely missed the comparison to the "towers in a park" architectural fad in the West.