The article didn't point out any arguments or facts to back up the theory that "you don't build a city like this", except for the opinion that "you just don't". Too much emotions, too little reason. The city may in fact be in decline but for the whole other reasons: decline in tourism and financial markets. These are the factors that influence it badly, not the way it was built. And if the city keeps declining it's because tourism, technology and finance dived too deep and weren't able to keep the city afloat, not because "it was built badly". I could understand such wording in an emotional blog post, not in anything even resembling serious journalims.