I scanned the linked article and I noticed several instances where the author made explicit references to contrast between these grand architectural gestures and the plight faced by many Soviet workers and commoners.

Did you feel the author failed to adequately address those realities?

It's always a bit difficult to strike the right balance between "talking about the subject at hand" and "acknowledging human suffering that was directly or tangentially related", particularly when discussing historical matters, since just about any event in history will be at least tangentially related to various horrors suffered by assorted individuals and groups of people.

The linked article appears to be written for an audience that has a passing familiarity with the Soviet Union and therefore gives only short mention to the (extremely important, more so than architecture!) human cost of such achievements.

At any rate, I do suppose it's better to err on the side of over-acknowledging human suffering than to do the opposite.