Sure, because they were largely built a hundred years ago, and parceled into lots a hundred more before that, and because NYC remains uniquely friendly to continued mixed-use development today.
You're using Hudson Yards as a positive development example? It's broadly hated for pretty much exactly the kind of large-scale developer homogenization discussed in the article.
> But the sameness and isolation of our built environment is not just the work of the invisible hand; policies have also encouraged this trend.
See how the author conveniently lumps together sameness and isolation? My comments are responding the isolation part, and you are probably referring to sameness. This is how a badly written article causes commenters to talk past each other.
But specifically on the point of sameness and homogenization: I disagree here. I think most people are insufficiently attuned to the differences in buildings. Next time take a real camera, put yourself in a street photographer’s shoe and photograph the Hudson Yards neighborhood. Even the skyscrapers aren’t the same. There’s enough aesthetic variation there.