I do think part of the point of this video is to challenge the popular ethos that waterfronts should be full of parks and public places for the public to enjoy and free of the forces of 'privatization' like restaurants, shops, and apartment/condo towers. Generally speaking, this line of thinking has had positive effects over the last 50-ish years. Cities with limited public waterfront access have made major strides to open waterfront land to public access. Industrial spaces have been cleaned up and opened up for public access. Many new parks have been built.
But can we take it too far? Everybody points to Chicago as a model of good waterfront planning. Chicago's 'front yard', the lakefront, is full of parks and public spaces and is the result of a mix of long-term planning, lawsuits, and some unique historical events. I certainly like the lakefront, but I feel a bit isolated from the city when I visit (I suppose that's part of the point) and it can be devoid of pedestrian activity in parts. On the other hand, the Chicago Riverwalk benefitted from much less advance planning (it didn't come online until after 2000), and includes a lot less public space. The walkway bumps up against restaurants and embankments and space is at a premium. Admittedly, it's not very peaceful, but it is engaging and lively. The point is that both have their benefits; a good waterfront, imho, should include aspects of both -- expansive public areas where you can find some peace and quiet and urban landscapes that are hopping with activity and include some private uses.
Chicago Lakefront
Chicago Riverfront