The Economist had a piece some months ago (can't remember which issue) on the recent vogue for cities to outdo each other in architectural originality, and the eventual pointlessness of having so many buildings that go to extreme lengths to catch the eye (ie. if every new and large building is "original," none of them are, as there is no "conventional" type to which "original" types might be compared).
Buildings criticized by the article included, among others, MIT's Stata Center (seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wfm_stata_center.jpg) and Toronto's ROM (seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Ontario_Museum.jpg) - incidentally, two buildings of which I'm quite fond.
With this in mind, I actually admire the sleek, unadorned, unpretentiousness of the Shangri-la, and appreciate how it appears very differently from different parts of the city. My hunch is that, much like the Fairmont hotel, it is an honest product of its day and will age very well. (Though, I must admit, a lighting feature would be nice!).