Having only an amateur interest on architecture, it strikes me as the author's argument to be very basic: basically "look at these buildings I like and then lo

Having only an amateur interest on architecture, it strikes me as the author's argument to be very basic: basically "look at these buildings I like and then look at these buildings I don't like". As I understand, architecture is not only subjective beauty, but it should be a more holistic, system-based discipline. Look at the rant about Alejandro Aravena's Innovation Center and then watch his TEDTalk about the principle he tried to followed. There's definitely an ocean of subjective difference between those two positions. Maybe the author just doesn't like the current, more "engineering" approach to try to solve many problems at once, rather than Gaudi's "look at this unpractical but funny angle" (really unfair characterization)