I am also an architect, so you can call me names too, if you want.
Goldberger's major critique of this design is scale. He is right. Imagine this:
You walk up to this building - there is NO character or detail, just an infinite plane of reflecting glass 50' high, stretching to infinity to your left and right (although it does curve out of view in a quarter mile or so). That's it. That's all folks, there is nothing more to see.
Is that great design? If you think so, please tell me why.
It's not reflecting glass. You can see right through the structure. The detail is inside instead of outside. That alone is worth consideration, putting all the visible detail on the inner parts of the building instead of the outer. And it's an 800+ ft radius - so the round thing is no longer round when you're next to it. The renderings seem to show that it curves just enough so you'll never see the immensity of the building, just the part near you. That's pretty cool. (When you're next to it, it curves out of view a lot sooner than 1/4 mile.) And there's plenty to see if you're inside: the outdoors.
Look, the history of architecture is like the history of art and of science and of literature and of music: it's the history of getting in dutch with people who claim the new thing is against god, nature and decency. 50 years later, it's a classic / breakthrough / visionary. No architect ever distinguished him or herself by doing the same thing everyone else did. "Great design" marries form and function and often in a new model of doing so. I believe this does.