My "professional" opinion? I think that given the additional complexity of constructing a multi-story highrise with many rotating parts--along with the additional resources involved in manufacturing, assembling, and maintaining the structure (think about it:giant, rotating, precision-machined metal elements...at the edge of a desert full of abrasive dust and in a corrosive environment, otherwise know as a coastal region)--that this building will consume so much additional energy and raw material that it will never in its usable lifespan "break even" or even come close in a "green sense." (We're making a common, if commonly unconscious, assumption here that "being green" is a zero-sum game played with resources and their consumption.)
Not that it won't be cool to look at, of course. I'm all for cool and visionary, I just think one shouldn't pretend that this sort of gratuitous engineering and construction elaboration will have anything more than an aesthetic value. There's some good reason to believe that no high-rise construction can be "green" in the sense that it is not exorbitantly (and perhaps, immorally--given the resource-deprived nature of three-quarters of the population of the planet) resource- and energy-consumptive.
But if we just drop the "green" business and truthfully declare that this is a giant wind-powered kinetic sculpture that people (if very, very wealthy ones) can live in...well, that's great. It might be more than great. It will be a wonder of art(which seemingly cannot be quantified in the zero-sum green game), and I'm just bitterly jealous that I'll never get to design or work on anything that interesting in my likely professional life.
