I have become increasingly intrigued by the use of this kind of language in architectural criticism:
"But the best reason to fall in love with the building is its seductive pull. A vibrant composition of concrete forms stacked on top of a delicate glass base, its design is calculated to lure people into a titillating architectural experience."
In fact I find the building appealing. It meets the Three Rules of urban design and appears as if it might well enliven the street, depending on how the first floor is used by the museum (i.e. if there is simply a desk with a guard at it, as one sees at some office building lobbies, that won't do much.) The windowless walls are a bit off-putting but we are seeing only one elevation of the building and from what appears to be an upper story; and museums are notorious for wanting to limit natural light. Hadid's reputation as am archi-star might not have gotten in the way of a good urban design.
I call this sort of structure a 'raisin in the oatmeal' design --- a few are good for a city but too many and it's like too much dessert.
But the critic's language is conclusory. How does it help people get a grip on the complexity of the built environment? I don't think it does. It is language which sets apart a building as an oh-so precious artistic object rather than as an element which has to fit into a city. Moreover it breaks the very first rule which Edward Said (my collegiate English composition teacher) set forth many years ago: "Explain what is happening in the poem -- who is speaking, what is the action etc etc --- before you interpret." It's a good rule for discussion buildings as well.