It half-way alludes to - and then shies away from - a bunch of potentially interesting things, then wildly changes direction in the last paragraph and ends abruptly. I wonder if the person who wrote it has ever even visited London? Most of it seems to be a near-direct lift form the Wikipedia article on the City of London.
A quick search turned up an article with pictures: https://www.aperturetours.com/blog/dragons
> We want a federal government that restrains itself from intrusive forays into the lives and businesses
> Unfortunately, these well-intentioned dragons at the thresholds of the City of London have been unable to guard against the onslaught of hubristic architects and developers
Wow, that's hard to conciliate! A limited-government conservative who is also a NIMBY and in favor a strong-government urban planning.
> Dhiru A. Thadani is an architect
One may reasonably disapprove of something, even to the extent of quite literally saying out loud that it is a bad thing, and yet still think that government enforcement is unnecessary.
> authentically free markets
Heavily regulating land markets is as far away from a free market as you can be.
I found it once as a teen, but 2 decades later, I'd be hard pressed to find it.
There are different versions of it - most common are probably a metal nail (if you have stone or something else to anchor it in), a metal pipe (if dirt is all you've got) or a massive, pain-in-the ass to lug around stone. (My dad's a surveyor, and in my youth I was cheap labor. I still hate boundary marker stones :)
It's AIUI not _necessary_ to have them, but if you have a property dispute, they come in handy.
Not only because it baits you with an interesting introduction suggesting that we'll get a really neat history lesson, but because it ends abruptly with wildly irrelevant, unsubstantiated opinions.
Why are big glass towers bad? Who have they harmed? Why is new development bad? Is there any evidence to show that these buildings are not as energy efficient as they claim to be? Which landmarks have been destroyed? In what way are buildings designed to make money bad? None of these questions are answered and we're expected to assume that the author's opinion comes from some position of authority.
It truly is conservative in the most primal sense: I don't want things to change, I don't know why, and I'm upset about it.