I think that we need to see some other images of how this design works. It is great to hear the opinions. My opinion is that one shouldn't try to "appropriate" context and "tack it on" to one's building. That LRT canopy is so expressive that I don't see an easy way to use that as context in a nearby building. Example: when KPF did that new university building across the footbridge from Gehry's Weisman, they didn't say, "Hey, let's do a curvilinear, abstracted skin!" Instead, they did a design that fit the program and responds to the context without MIMICKING it. KPF smartly played off of the classic columns of the buildings on the mall but expressed them using a polished/reflective metal that pulls from the Weisman. An LRT stop by nature has an opportunity that most buildings don't and that is to be VERY expressive and unique (in the manner of a traditional "folly" - a standalone piece of architecture). It is ill-advised (in my opinion) to appropriate very expressive design for the reasons above but also because it diminishes the original. Sorry to do get into architecture theory but Jencks said (paraphrased), "Architecture gets meaning by contrast or by similitude." To borrow very expressive architecture diminishes that expression as the rest of the context would then become homogenous if borrowing went futher. Long story longer, this canopy should express the architecture of the building and have affinity with THAT, instead of expressive design nearby and they should inform each other by contrast. My $.02.