To the contrary, I believe

"I'm not sure it's exactly what you'd call architecture."

Credit Times Online

Well, yes, it is a bridge so it might not appear to fit the standard definition of a building.

But in contemporary terms I'd suggest that it qualifies as architecture, maybe even top-notch architecture: it's a Very Large Scale Object created by human beings and which in this instance appears from the photos -- (and that's how most contemporary architecture is actually experienced—I wish I had a dollar for every person who raves about, say, Gehry's Disney Hall but who has never been to it in person) -- to be magnificent mysterious spectacular sparkling  eye-candy of the first rank.

Nevertheless, as with other pieces of architecture about which people justly or unjustly rave -- Koolhaas' Seattle Public Library for another -- part of the judgment about its worth should be whether it accommodates the human outside a car or truck.

In the case of a bridge: the question is whether it was designed so that one can walk and/or bike across it in comfort and safety?

It's hard to tell from this photo whether the experience of it walking/biking across it would be pleasant:

Credit Times Online

UPDATE: Even ACD agrees.