An architectural critic ultimately offers an opinion, not the final word. Let us not forget that Christopher Hume was also an architectural critic.
Regardless, it's clear that this building is going back for a redesign—and I do think that people should hold off their vitriol at such an early phase. To have such a violent reaction against rough massing (devoid of materiality or articulation) is unnecessary.
TBH, the first proposal was just as boxy.
I'm certainly not engaging in vitriol; I would agree others should not.
The heatedness of this discussion bothers me, as I see a propensity for hyperbole and overeach instead of a discussion of facts and preferences.