Please tell me what you think?
Great improvement. In addition to other comments, might try dropping the highlights just a bit, raise the shadows, clarity and dehaze just a tad, then use the adjustment brush to heal some of the highlight reflections on the glass.
Nope. I cannot agree with healing the highlight reflections on the glass...the highlight reflections add realism. This sort of modern urban landscape photography, which first appeared around 1969 or so, is based on realistic depictions of the modern world. "Healing" something as visually revealing as a reflection is the wrong course of action in this style of landscape photography. it's like polarizing away the "surface reflection" on the water surface of a creek or river, eliminating the reflection that provided depth cues, and revealing the bottom rocks of the riverbed, while eliminating the reflection that says, "water surface". In this case, the reflections indicate something "real". The entire idea is that we are looking through windows; eliminating reflections on them eliminates the depiction's accuracy.
Anyway...as much as I think the second rework is better than the first, I still do thing that more balancing of the image's overall parameters could be done; it needs to be presented 'just so', in perfect balance, the balance ebtween the exterior light level and the interior light levels. As-shown, it's still a bit heavy-handed, with too much shadow densitry, and not quite the expanded, wide dynamic range that this type of shot looks best in. As-shown, the tonal range, the tone curves too, are not quite fully optimized.
See Joel Meyerowitz's book "Cape Light" from around 1980 to see what perfectly-balanced, wide-DR images look like on modern seascapes. His big "schtick" was using color negative film, back when almost all "serious photography" was done with narrower dynamic range color transparency film.