A 220 story building would be an engineering marvel, and at the same time not a threat to civil engineers. The bread and butter for engineers are much smaller buildings, which are less technically challenging and acceptable for new construction techniques to be tested out on. You would expect to see a lot more civil engineering resistance on the smaller targets, not the biggest ones. The biggest issue facing such a monster building is the safety of even going that high, considering wind shear, earthquake risks, etc.
Which is a round about way of suggesting that despite bureaucracy and resistance from entrenched traditions, that real-estate development ideas are much like startups: most run out of money and are worth zero. Unlike startups, the upper bound on profit is low, but their potential persists owing to the real nature of real property - land doesn't go anywhere.
For example , in israel, where the land is usually bought from the state, sometimes groups of private people gather together to build an apartment complex and save a bit of money.But that's a long(and maybe risky) project, so people rarely do so.
But let's say it was a short process - a group gathers, gives the funds , and in month they enter their apartments. I could see this becoming more common, because you can have decent savings .
And assuming that happens - now it's people buying their own land(and build higher structures on it), won't that change the pricing dynamic on land, and the political pressures on the state which sells such land ?
I am not a civil engineer, so I can't criticize their construction method. But I wonder if it is traditional civil engineering community's prejudice, or fear of being swept away by any revolutionary technology that keeps them opposing this sort of construction technique?