For what it's worth I think it's too over the top, too cartoony, too saturated and too manipulated. And I kinda like it. I'm not too happy with the halo effect around the building but apart from that it's not too shabby. I haven't tried the technique myself but I will, now that you've planted the seed.
One thing I think is important and is worth repeating. Don't make the mistake of thinking that an image is either HDR or it's not. Why not take that image into Photoshop now and see what can be (un)done? If you do decide to take it further in PS, and this goes for any editing task, be sure to keep the image in TIFF format until you're absolutely happy with it. The only editing I do after JPEG conversion is cropping.
BTW - There is an argument for cropping as the first stage of editing and there is some merit in it. I've always done it last but I have often wondered how the final submission would have looked had I cropped initially. For instance, when looking at an image before cropping you might decide that it needs a tad more saturation, but when you finally crop it you notice that the main picture element which led to the saturation increase is no longer in the image, and so subsequently the image looks rather "overblown". There's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.
Forgive my terminology. I'm not an "educated" photographer so sometimes I just say things the way I understand them to be, whether it's technically accurate or not. Keep a pinch of salt handy.
Various lenses, SB800 & Manfrotto 190 with 460MG head