When project architect Stephen Best discussed the Pharmacy building at the public forum In the Skin of a Building three years ago, he admitted that, aesthetically, some things didn't work as planned - the original design called for much stronger horizontal banding of the upper box to contrast with vertical banding ( columns etc. ) of the lower box, for instance.
But I got the impression that it was well thought out conceptually, in matching functions to form. The building is in two parts -an upper box with sparsely populated research labs that don't need lots of light, and a heavily populated and more open ground level. Closed box at top, open box at base. Less glazing on the south side of the upper box to reduce heat gain. More glazing on the north side of the upper box where there is less sun. The uses were fitted into the building on that basis. And it respects the surrounding structures - the soffit of Pharmacy aligned with the parapet of the building to the north for instance.
With Gimpo, I have no idea whether there are surrounding buildings to adjust to, or what they look like. As for the expressive tree symbolism, the "branches" are cosmetic additions that don't emerge from a structural trunk, and the innards of the building appear quite conventional. It's a bit like Gehry's spectacular AGO Dundas facade, which doesn't reflect the rectilinear galleries inside, or maybe Nouvel's Copenhagen Concert Hall exterior that's literally all flash.
