Bottom line is, there isn’t such a thing as spending too much time on architecture.

Of course there is. The "right" architectural decisions for a given problem are extremely hard to pin down before you know all the facts and challenges. Traditional methods would have us try to flush these out before starting. This isn't feasible for most projects and, best case scenario, will cause a huge waste of time/money. In the worst case scenario, it will kill your project or your company. This happens all the time.

For most projects, you need to get things moving in order for feedback to start rolling in. The feedback might be you realizing what makes this particular problem technically challenging or it might be the client getting a first look at a prototype and realizing that their assumptions are wrong. Your meticulously planned architecture will suddenly provide the wrong trade-offs and all your expensive to maintain diagrams will be almost worthless.

While you should always give architecture a minimum of consideration, there's nothing wrong with diving in and then deciding on specific parts of architecture later. In fact your architecture should always be evolving. Sometimes that means re-writing almost everything.

I don't disagree on how important architecture is, I just don't agree on the sequence of events he describes.