What makes it ordinary to you? It's sort of sad that you can't see the beauty in something this stately, clean, and simple. Not every building should scream at you.
People can learn to appreciate things they may not have in the past. You can't make them though, you're right about that.
Can't make them like it, but they can can very much be wrong in that opinion.
What don’t you like about it or find uninteresting?
After all the bashing had another look at it and ....... still dont like it.
That's nice work, Alex. Thanks.
It takes 2 to tango.
Oxford Dictionaries:
and The Toronto Star 
. It reeks of proto-hipster/wokesters with unusual eyeglass frames, funny haircuts, pinched faces and unearned airs of superiority, sitting at tables in the lobbies outside classrooms at plate-glass universities, who I'm sure started using it to delight in provoking precisely the reaction you (and I) had.Oxford Dictionaries:
sem·i·nal
/ˈsemən(ə)l/
adjective
1. (of a work, event, moment, or figure) strongly influencing later developments.
"his seminal work on chaos theory"
2. relating to or denoting semen.
"the spermatozoa are washed to separate them from the seminal plasma"
Northern Light, I dislike that first listed sense of the word at least as much as you do. As far as I know it was never used this way until the early 1990s, when I first started noticing it in places like album reviews in Now Magazine
But it's in the ridiculously permissive dictionaries now, which means it's too late to do anything about it except scrupulously never using it. Today writers use it either unknowingly or in order to come across as writerly and more-learned-than-thou, not realizing that they are not writerly, not learned, and actually have a shallow-rooted and impoverished feel for English. But at least once in a while there's a decent and usable neologism, and a perfect example is the one that describes this sense of 'seminal' to a tee: cringy.
Thanks for the heads-up and link to your column. I appreciate your effort to save the building, but I fear you made few allies and many enemies by tying it in with a plea to tear down houses in residential neighbourhoods and replace them with mid-rise apartment buildings. Maybe you should have at least defined what you meant by mid-rise. If I had to guess, I'd say it meant taller than 6 storeys and fewer than 20, but others may have sensed something more like 12-25. I don't know. Anyway, replacing houses with anything will do nothing to relieve the shortage of housing, in much the same way that building freeways provides no long-term relief of road congestion, but simply causes cars to appear out of nowhere and clog them up in no time at all. Build a million apartments and word of it will reach millions of people across the country and around the world very quickly. A million-and-a-quarter of them will show up in person.