You appear to have used a wide angle lens and pointed it slightly downwards, so my assumption is that you deliberately chose to have a large expanse of sea in the foreground. The almost equal amounts of sea and sky constitute one of the reasons why I'm not keen on this.
I have a number of minor niggles, which can be listed as:
1. The obviously unvertical verticals caused by pointing the lens downwards. This is made very obvious by the white building at the right frame edge.
2. The way the top of the pier (?) just manages to line up with the shore line behind. I would have preferred to either see some water (even only a narrow ribbon) or have the top hide the buildings beyond.
3. The way that the pier tapers but is ultimately cut off by the left hand frame edge. If you had included more, it would have completed the taper; cropping the image as is only creates an unbroken wall across the centre, so seems to be a bad idea.
Other points are the three things that catch the eye almost at once. The first is the white building on the right edge; the second the red floating stage (?); and the third the white object just beyond it. I don't find that these lead my eye gently across the image so much as drag it to specific points, which means that I don't appreciate it as a cohesive image.
There are certain types of image that don't need a central focus (which may not necessarily be in the physical centre of course), and one which doesn't is the panorama, where the attention is supposed to be allowed to wander over a number of point of equal importance. In this case, converting to a panorama doesn't seem to help, because the central strip is too even in heights and tones to provide the visual variety of a panorama.
My suggestion for an alternative would be to leave the bottom complete and to crop the sky. By placing the buildings nearer to the top of the image, you'll emphasise their height, and make the tower - well more towering. It would strengthen visually the appearance and I think make the image more cohesive.