I agree. But I agreed before I read the article.

The Architect as Totalitarian

Le Corbusier was to architecture what Pol Pot was to social reform. In one sense, he had less excuse for his activities than Pol Pot: for unlike the Cambodian, he possessed great talent, even genius. Unfortunately, he turned his gifts to destructive ends, and it is no coincidence that he willingly served both Stalin and Vichy. Like Pol Pot, he wanted to start from Year Zero: before me, nothing; after me, everything.

From a wonderfully interesting article by Theodore Dalrymple. I agree almost entirely with the thrust of this article — (the major exception is the author’s harsh judgment of reinforced concrete, which in the right hands can be a wonderfully urbane material.) But I agreed with that thrust long before I read it. So for those who already understand why Le Corbusier was so destructive, to urbanism, it's a good article.

But from a didactic perspective, I am not sure if this article helps people (who have not thought about urban form) to understand why exactly Le Corbusier was so wicked in his impact. It's not good enough to state that he was totalitarian. You must show and explain the forms which the totalitarian, controlling mind produces. Contrast the isolated tower-in-plaza with the sidewalk-hugging Jane Jacobs street etc etc. It's important for as many people as possible to understand and be able to recognize what he did that was so bad and to be able to describe it to others. 

As interesting as it is, this article fails to offer the punch line: to educate the general reader about exactly why and how in architectural and spatial terms was Le Corbusier so destructive. (And the why and how are hardly matters requiring special training.) The author spends too much time on what are really abstract generalities -- which is precisely our criticism of Le Corbusier: he was too much concerned with theory and abstraction and too little with simply helping to craete a pleasant walkable city. 

Alas.