Just a couple thoughts after reading some of the posts.
In my opinion, futuristic does not equal contemporary. As I said in an earlier post, a truly modern building, a "contemporary" one, if you will, is far more about sustainability, construction techniques, and materials, than it is about any particular form or aesthetic value or architectural style.
I don't think one would have needed to do anything to the original A-frame either in terms of making it more "contemporary." A successful design, imo anyway, would have enhanced the "contemporary" nature of the original A-frame, while also creating a new identity for the new building.
I guess I'll just detail a couple reasons I feel it comes up short. First, and I think most importantly, is the lack of LEED certification (google it if you don't know it's too hard to explain in a short post). There is no excuse, in my opinion, that with a company as innovative as Disney, and a theme of "contemporary" that that building should not be LEED gold. My guess would be the massive amount of concrete used would make it difficult even if they wanted to. Second, the choice and placement of glazing does not echo the glazing on the original A-frame. On the original, the glazing is set back in the balconies, creating a nice shadow effect, and having no reflection. A more successful design, in my opinion of course, would have been to either set the windows back just a little, to create the same shadow effect on it's sister building, or used glazing that did not have such a high reflectivity. This difference is quite noticeable and detracts from the overall look of the resort. One last point I'd like to mention is that due to the huge wall of glazing facing west, I'm curious as to the solar heating of the building. Possibly another reason LEED certification would be hard to come by.
I think I know what the architects were trying to do, namely turning the A-frame on edge, and bending the A into a curvilinear C. And I do find it a novel idea and a neat design element. My biggest issue with the building is not the aesthetic quality (though I do find it extremely generic and analogous to literally tons of other hotel towers) but the fact it does not truly embrace it's "contemporary" theme by not being on the cutting edge of architectural style or form, construction techniques or materials, or sustainability practices.
In short, Disney could have built a hotel that exemplified "contemporary" and modern, and showed the world what a modern, sustainable hotel could be, but instead built a tower in 2008/9 as though it were still 1999.
