I'm not too fond of either proposal. The first looks good by itsself but doesn't fit into the context (dwarfs all the szr towers) and doesn't have much that's special about it. A nice tower but pretty boring
The second is certainly not boring and definitely makes a statement but goes a tad too far. Some people like to compare architecture with sculpture or some other art but it really is not the same. Why? Because if you make something ugly people will go to the museum and either say "yuck" or "hmm, interesting" or "wow, what a change from the norm" but once they leave the museum everything is back to normal. With a building, especially a tall one the general public will have to endure your piece of shit for decades and there's no escaping it. I know if I was a kid this thing would scare the shit out of me, I could easily imagine a kid walking out of the DIFC metro station and seeing this tower above them and start crying their eyes out
)
In art you don't have to care what everyone else thinks but in architecture you DO because you design your building for the general public and is to be used by them, etc.