In reading your article "Towers of Doom" (29 August, page 36) I find myself having to comment on the article's validity.
Linking the construction of some of the world's tallest buildings with the economic stability of a given country is a bit random, in my opinion.

Of course it would make sense that large, prestigious buildings would be build when the economy is good – that is not exactly groundbreaking thinking. However, I find it a bit daft that the author goes on to state that the construction of a tall building can be taken as an "indication that you are in the middle of an unsustainable boom". I think it important to emphasise that, by the author's own admission, the buildings are built while the going is good and while the money is flowing; it would therefore make perfect sense for there to be some form of coincidental correlation between the construction of a tower and the eventual bust or lull of the economy. Generally, a boom is eventually followed by some kind of bust, irrespective of whether a tall building has recently reached completion. There is no real evidence that these buildings directly affect or link to such patterns in the economy and as a result I found the whole article a bit pointless.