Just askin'....

Sculpture cannot be architecture or vice versa?

It would a fantasic train station in my opinion, with its implication of flow and fowardness.

The second I think is interesting. I might be a touch gimmicky but it's no worse than the EMP.

I'm less offended by an attempt at an artistic building as opposed to a big box with windows.

You'd critique a fucking grocery list, Charles.

To me it's the nature of that particular dialogue, which in the process creates a tension between form and function that is expressed in the design of the building that I personally find interesting, and I think both buildings accomplish this in different ways.

Nor do I buy the assertion that it cannot nor does not have a relation to other buildings, since the entire basis of this discussion is the comparison of it to another similarly functioned, but quite different in form building located almost half way around the world. Apparently, the panel that approved this felt otherwise, in that it met their requirements in this regard, as outlined in the original competition prospectus:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402070

The conversation IS occuring; it's just not going in a direction you may have prefered, is all.