Why?architecture, and specifically towers, should be indicative of technological progress and modern design ideas instead of shallow, vapid, regressive, historicism.
Historicism gets a bad rep. "Neo" anything is derided as a cheap imitation of some supposedly pure or authentic original. I have always thought this itself a rather lazy exercise in rejection. Is Vienna's Ringstrasse "bad"? Is the National Cathedral in Washington DC (and by extension anything Gothic built after the middle ages like the British Houses of Parliament, or Yale University) "regressive"? Is the the Capitol building shallow because it imitates classical forms? Again, why must architecture be indicative of technological progress? To me, this is nearly as vapid as looking to the past - it is merely looking at the present. The notion that buildings must "represent" some transient zeitgeist instead of appealing to widespread aesthetic considerations seems to me not only faddish but also responsible for many of the unapproachably mystical garbage buildings that get built by starchitects nowadays.
Just because Adolf Loos didn't like something doesn't mean we have to dislike it too. The 'style-wars' of the 20th century were ridiculous for this very reason: there is no intellectually or culturally superior style.