When the only assessment we can make about a creative work, e.g. a building (but fine arts just as well), is that it looks "cool", or "interesting", or "contemporary", or "futuristic", what that really means is that we are hesitant to say it looks "beautiful", "attractive", "timeless". Strong assessments like the latter are axiomatic and require a confidence in your aesthetic sensibilities. That these sensibilities are globally shared, that you are empathetic enough to step outside of your own head and look at it as an older person, as a child, as somebody who won't be born until a century from now.
Modern spectacle architecture (like that Bangkok tower) today does not inspire that confidence. It defies being called beautiful, because innately we experience it as not that. It might look "cool", or futuristic, but that's about it. A building like that is infantile branding, it looks like a tetris-game because the kind of people who design and finance this are childish, confusing technological prowess with worth and beauty.
Once upon a time, that all-glass skyscraper was "cool" and stood out, even among the other skyscrapers. Now, we don't blink twice at such towers being stood up.
My point being that architecture as a field and as an art form both progress forward in society. Right now buildings like the MahaNakhon stand out. In the future, they may just be the first instances of the next "timeless" trend.
Also, there's plenty of beauty to find in the MahaNakhon, especially at night... And I'll talk for myself in saying that I find beauty in the execution of technological prowess. The same way I see beauty in well-laid masonry or tile design. They're just using different material.
Basically, anything before modernism, before WW1 is generally good. Or really, anything before cars. The rise of car culture and the decline of architecture are directly correlated.
I personally had a hard time articulating why I found contemporary architecture so revolting, it was just a feeling. Then I found videos by Leon Krier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFiYL8AvvnY), or Nathan Lewis's blog series on the topic (https://newworldeconomics.com/category/traditional-city-post...), and everything suddenly just clicked.
It's a good thing there's more than one building in the world. Everyone should be able to live, work, and design spaces they like, within the local scale (so no 80 floor highrises next to houses if they don't want it, but props to the houses if they do want the highrise). That means you might end up with a glass box next to a pre-WW1 stone box. That's a good thing -- there's no reason a long-passed generation should have the final say in architecture at the expense of the present.
A building like this is a shtick. "Cool" for about 5 minutes. It will not age gracefully. The people behind this project confuse architecture with sculpture.