Jacob's criticisms of the design stem in broader architectural designs of the structures and how the overall development fits into the surrounding neighborhood. The author of the OP is talking about specific nitpicks of things like escalators and railings. They are not at all in the same company.

If the author wants to talk about how the glass buildings and their shape don't fit into the neighborhood, or that they lack a certain aesthetic, then fine. But he's not doing that. He is arguing against functional design principles that are not only commonplace across many similar developments, they are also in place for a reason.

Klaus Jacob's full comment pertains to the inability of the development to sustain changes from climate change, his criticism is not at all aesthetic but functional. He is a geophysicist.

These are, again, not at all in the same ballpark as the criticisms in the OP article. It is apples and oranges.

author seems astonished at the escalator placement that has been standard practice for over a decade.