Rockwell presents his opinion as fact even when it is actually a contested opinion. Yes, professionals use 24-70 lenses. They aren't for every situation, but there are plenty where they are great go to lenses.

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, for example, is one of the most popular zoom lenses ever. I do wedding photography and during the reception, the 24-70 lives on my camera 85% of the time. Nikon's f/2.8 in that segment is no slouch either if I'm remembering correctly, but double check that as I don't shoot Nikon and so my knowledge of their lens systems is not nearly as good as that of Canon.

What Ken (Rockwell) was likely trying to get at is the fact that prime lenses are far cheaper for the quality level and so he is advocating use of prime lenses rather than a standard zoom, since you can move with your feet relatively easily in most cases to adjust for the position when using that near of a focal length. Telephoto zooms are a bit harder to use as primes since you'd have to walk a lot further to adjust your framing.

In the real world however, sometimes you don't have the time or ability to move those few feet to get the composition you need or you need to rapidly be able to change the perspective of your lens. Event photography is a perfect example of this. In those cases, a professional photographer can and should use the lens that best lets them cover the situation and a fast standard zoom lens fills that niche superbly.

For your situation of shooting mostly buildings where you can set the shot up, you are probably best served by following his advice though. Your subjects don't move and you need maximum low light capability. The extra stop or two of aperture in addition to the cost savings and/or sharpness advantage of prime lenses will give you the most bang for your buck in shooting static objects since repositioning and swapping lenses isn't an issue.

You'd do fine with a fast zoom, but you'll be paying more than you need to for capabilities you will use less frequently.