the way it was written sounds like it was a business analyst or a agile-transformation consultant but not a person who understands engineering. Also it does not offer any proof/sources to the claims being made. e.g.:

"Unfortunately, this kind of a grand plan usually leads to technical-debt that collapses towards complete immobility. Complexities in even one of these services can take down the entire project. Unknown problems at the beginning can't be rolled into the new plan easily because all services are dependent on this architectural contract."

why?? it totally depends on the design/architecture on how flexible it will be.

or:

"In short, architectural plans push the team towards waterfall development, a system that has fallen out of favor as more and more projects have failed."

This article was probably written by a UE/UX designer. IMO you always need a "big picture"/vision/plan (whatever you call it) before you think about UI aspects. How flexible that plan is in regard to user-experience depends on how well it was designed. Also the type of design doesn't dictate if whether you have to chose lean/agile/waterfall as your development process.