Lots of good ideas

so far but I think we cannot get away without going a bit further.

eek
The word
fanyalgó (adj.) is not used totally in its original meaning in the article in my opinion, this is partly why it is difficult to translate.
My Hungarian one language dictionary (MÉK) gives the following definition to
fanyalog (the verb giving the base for the adjective in question):
Kényeskedően,
húzódozva,
kelletlenül mond, tesz valamit. (In English,
more or less: somebody says or does something
with airs and graces, being
over-squeamish, reluctant and unwilling/hesitant, so, lacking enthusiasm, willy-nilly, without his heart being in it.)
(See also its synonyms:
fintorog/ pull faces,
idegenkedik/be averse to something,
húzódozik/feel reluctant to do something... See why I was talking about the 'lack of enthusiasm' above?)
To me the listed criticisms were fairly objective in the article, at least as much as it is possible when talking about taste (for style, look, materials used, etc). They were surely not appreciative about the buildings (statues, bridges, etc.) new at the time but they were not particularly emotional or
sniffy. (Another possible translation for
fanyalgó together with
over-squeamish.)
I think the adjective was used mainly in the light of how we look at these buildings nowadays: most of them are considered to be a 'great feature' in Budapest and, from this angle, those old criticisms may be interpreted as
fanyalgó (unwilling to accept something with a sour/wry face...

).
All in all, I think, the easiest way out is
dismissive (in a particular way).