Indeed it is the client who chooses the architect, but it seems dubious to suggest that any one of the architects in Alvin's post wouldn't give us something rectilinear. Sure, it could be an angled box (Libeskind), a slick, high-tech box (Foster), a highly-refined box (Piano), a box with boxes stuck to it (Teeple), an invisible box (Patkau has never done high-rise, not that they couldn't) or an intruded and extruded set of stacked boxes (S+P) but in the end, the base form remains.
What's particularly annoying about this 'boxes-are-the-worst' hogwash is that the architects detractors look to for the illusive 'something better' often employ boxes in their architectural language, sometimes exclusively. It would be wise to take a second to look into the design vocabulary employed by those who some feel would give us a better product before suggesting that they would woo us with 'hey, look at me' shapes and more 'creative' forms.
Do I think that Piano or Foster or the like would give us a better building? Almost certainly. Do I believe that it would depart radically from the form (box) Wallman has authored? Almost certainly not.
