李祖原 is so problematic, which I think he has been but with certain awareness of the historical context of Taiwan, we should lay it all out in an intelligible fashion. What is his main problem? What has caused it? Who are the client and recipients of his building? Are they "happy" with the result? And so on and so forth........
maybe the client is happy, but the building did hurt lots people's eye and for those people who live and work in the same city and have no way to escape from it, the design of 101 is truly a kind of crime.
I also don't believe that the 101 respons to context of Taiwan. No matter it's like a bamboo or a pagoda.
First, bamboo or a pagoda have nothing to do with the city context or Taiwan histary.
Second, trying to catch the spirit of culture is far more important than just reproducing its form. If Mr. Lee thought bamboo is important, then try to bring "tranquil" or "upright" into its space, its plans and its sections....and these should bring in light, sound and touch which present these two values.
Third,Even if Mr. Lee thought an easy-understood symbolic form is important, he still can create one that is more elaborate and elegant. When talking about "Asian style", I think Petronas Tower and Jin Mao Tower (both by Cesar Pelli) are much more handsome and show more carefully designed details and proportion.
When one see an American skyscraper shaped just like an eagle with its wings, claws and a beak, he/she would probably think it's a joke instead of a great architecture represents Unite States. However, a same kind of thing has been done by Mr. Lee
Fourth, actually, when a building created at this scale, the historical context is not that important. The appearing of city skyline as well as the quality of street front usage should place in the first place.
Afterall, I really respect to the great engineering achivement in the project of T101, but when talking about architecture, I can hardly love it.