To be perfectly honest, I don't find it very compelling. From my point of view, there are a couple of issues that I think you should address in a re-shoot to make this more successful.
First, there's the tilt of the tower. You've already got your 18-55 at 18mm, so I'd say back up if possible to get more of the building in the shot and get your camera up as high as you can on your tripod. Frame your composition so that the tower is straight up and down, and let the horizon line of the building's base tilt to make that happen. This is about perspective. The roof and the base of the building on the ground are just like train tracks running away from us, so don't try to fight it with an artificial tilt - it doesn't work. We see that perspective with our eyes in real life, so you should allow it with the camera as well so that the composition looks natural to us. Don't try to artificially straighten that building base flat horizontal as though it's a horizon - it's not.
Also, I suggest allowing more of the parking lot in that composition. The more the building and it's tower are centered in the frame, the straighter/squared off it's going to appear. You can always crop the parking lot or some of the left of the frame off later, but the building will still be squared in the composition that remains.
Second, that big, blank, black space that takes up SO MUCH of the composition and represents the sky is boring in the extreme - seriously. I would suggest to you to arrive before dusk or before dawn, and start shooting then. Even a little bit of light and color is better than none. If you're lucky enough to have some clouds, even better. Those elements provide interest to the viewer in that big, blank space, and a composition like this really needs it. When the light is gone and the sky is black like this, call it quits - you're done.
Third, it appears to be just a little bit overexposed. The white tower has two faces, and we can barely tell where the corner facing us is. There's absolutely no detail at all in the white part of the building, and it's going to be difficult enough to express a dimensional quality to the building and tower without it, but as it is, it just looks blown out. I can see from the shadow of the light post against the building that there's a major light source almost dead on to the camera axis that's not helping you at all. If you have any control over that light source, lose it while you're shooting this, or at least tone it down a lot. Even better, reposition if if you're able so that it lights one face of the tower, but not the other. That will give you a dimensional quality that would help a lot. If it's your vehicle's headlights, use them to your advantage. Right now, it looks like like the building went down to the DMV and got snapped with a giant on-board camera flash.
Finally, just an F.Y.I. for you. Long exposure doesn't cause flare. Refraction on the lens by light hitting it at certain angles causes flare - at any shutter speed. If you're talking about the starburst effect of rays of light eminating from the street lights, that's caused by your tight aperture at f/18 and also happens irrespective of shutter speed. So, saying you "intentionally chose a long shutter speed for the lens flare" is kind of like saying you chose a long shutter speed for the miles per gallon on the highway savings - the two are unrelated. At best, you chose a tight aperture for the starburst effect, and that resulted in a longer shutter speed.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/37/37656-96c70ee246b815f10e703ff6cd8acdc0.jpg?1734170811)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/37/37657-01deca3769b38b716838942ccbfce66a.jpg?1734170812)
