syn puts the horse ( or, in his case, the alligator ) before the cart by claiming that "goodness" is defined by someone liking something ( "I like it therefore it's good" ) - rather than it being the inherent quality that's a result of the talent put into the creation of something. As indicated earlier, you can't draw anything more from a work of the imagination ( and I include the Distillery as a concept as such ) than was put into it in the first place. I've yet to encounter any convincing definition of how that "good" is created, but I know that it can be perceived, and that our lives are more enjoyable as a result. Such a "high" has parallels in other art forms, not just architecture, obviously. If the essence of such talent ( the "good" ) could be defined and quantified it could be endlessly reproduced and we'd have a city full of beauty rather than a place of much mediocrity and some ugliness - enlivened, occasionally, by the beautiful - which is the Toronto we actually live in. And in that light, Cityscape's first smart move was getting a good architectural firm, rather than a second rate one, to design the Distillery for them. That some don't intuit the Distillery's excellence isn't a moral failing on their part. The bind syn's in is that the good is defined by those who see it, not by those like him who don't; review his earlier posts in particular to see how profoundly he doesn't "get it", even if those who do get it have been at some great pains to explain it to him within the limits of explaining how anything that works ... works.