Some of it's a matter of taste for sure but I found the repeated griping about how it tapers at ground level a truly bizarre complaint. Would he really prefer it if it took up its entire monolithic footprint to the total exclusion of pedestrians?

This is just standard nimby style writing, describing every element of a proposal in a maximally negative and catastrophic light.

That the writer studied architecture tells you all you need to know - they have nothing of value to add and can only critique endlessly out of a misguided belief that the aesthetics of buildings can bring about a collectivist utopia. It’s the original home of social engineering and central planning.

The country doesn’t have much to do with it. Norman Forster travels all over.