It isn't architecture if it doesn't move you.
And it isn't criticism if it doesn't either. Muschamp could often be tasteless, his sense of aesthetic was often off. But he was also more than a critic, he was a tribune for the public value of architecture.
As with many personality writers, his infecting of his views with his personal relationships was often maddening to me, as if the way to get a good review from him were to have sex with him or at least cocktails. His metaphors were often forced, his faith in his own infallibility strained.
But through all of that he wanted architecture for how we live today, and while the definition of that could be argued endlessly, it is, at least, a goal higher than producing critical fiber that passes easily on newsprint.