It doesn't sound like it makes any mention of software engineering.
[citation needed]
This debate comes up periodically, and in some forums we are lucky enough to have engineers from other disciplines pop up, who comment to the effect that they do rather more experimentation and software-like development than computer programmers often realize. The "big" projects that we associate with blueprints are rather small by percentage of projects done, and even they require a certain amount of flexibility to handle changes discovered during the course of the build ("oh, crap, this bedrock is actually sand!").
Mind you, the previous paragraph is also [citation needed], but my real point is and remains to call for actual experience and knowledge and not just regurgitations of stereotypes.
(I know a number of engineers in my circle of family and friends, and none of them actually work in anything like the "Waterfall" model, only with blueprints. The closest is the one who is in charge of designing racecars, and they still do experimental designs in computers, and before computers, did experimental builds of cars.)
Designing a building is much more akin to configuring a server (which anyone here is perfectly comfortable doing by blueprint) than developing an application.
The level of detail usually required in a software-blueprint would amount to including the placement of pencils on every desk in the building-blueprint.
Funny, you make it sound like software engineering is dead.