Well, think of it like one of my other idee fixes: road tripping. Brazilian vs bush is like Hwy 401 vs Old Hwy 2: "boring" vs "interesting". And of course, you can likewise claim that "very few people are interested in returning to the motoring norms of the 1950s".
Of course, in our "post-deferential society", it may be argued that as w/pubic grooming and old-new urbanism, 401 vs 2 are better viewed as symbiotic rather than as oppositional--which in itself is an advance from raw retro-50s reactivism. What I'm *really* needling are those who'd find my so-labelled "interesting" to be even *more* boring, in an "aw jeez, Dad, when are we going to get there" way. Who IMO are like those who find pubes, or Jane Jacobs-style messy-old-urbanism, "gross".
And in practice, I find those who expound all the more about ooh! aah! neato new starchitecture to be all the more incompetent in "taking in" the fullness of our existing fabric...which can be a powerful preemptive to our starchitect fix, and even enable us to "manage" the potential compromise or even collapse of a scheme. Sort of like: even if Mirvish/Gehry fails, Toronto's still strong.
And if you're incompetent at "taking existing Toronto in", you'd probably be likewise in grander and lesser municipalities, alike.
You're missing the point. Your finding of waxed pubes 'unreal' or fake or superficial is just as unsupportable as someone finding the reverse. You're just using your own conservatism as a universal standard then judging any deviation from it as immature or somehow less able. It's not at all the case that a man or woman who doesn't like grinding their genitals against a scour pad is "incompetent in 'taking in'" the situation. They're just as capable of taking it in as you are, they just reached conclusions you haven't.
It's tautological. If you define something as unnatural or fake, it lets you denigrate anyone who values it as some kind of uncultured rube just jumping on the newest fad without engaging any of their actual reasons for liking it. You're ignoring the reasons people (who aren't stupid) genuinely think M-G is an improvement over the warehouses, and just arguing they suck at urbanism, since nobody who doesn't suck at urbanism would feel that way.
The real irony is, given your obvious fossil-philia, I doubt you've ever even tried getting a Brazilian/Manzilian, yet you're still 100% sure that the people who do are superficial pubescent boys who don't know anything about sex.
It's like the old foggies who hang around record shops complaining about how much new music sucks and all the kids with their rap music and electro and dubstep simply don't understand music since, if they did, obviously they'd be listening to Pink Floyd or Rush or some such fossil band. These people think they're all cultured and musically knowledgeable, but they're just confusing their own preferences for some kind of objective reality which they use to judge others.
It reminds of Lansdude's comment; so many of the criticisms of M-G aren't even
about M-G vs. the warehouses, it's about the people doing the criticizing and their need to "punch one's own independent think card." Supporters become 'pubescent,' 'immature,' 'Gehry-worshippers,' 'fanboys' or some such things. It apes the language of the aforementioned 'Classic Rock aficionados' perfectly; whereas they "know" about music, the 'kids' who like rap are just some stupid teenagers who've never even listened to a full album on their iphones.
It's not enough to say why they like Rush or Bush or warehouses more than the newer alternative, they have to demean the people who don't share their view as immature. This wouldn't be an issue if you said "I like the warehouses because of x,y and z" or "I like pubic bush because I like getting wires stuck in my teeth when I go down," they would just be your preferences. But your preferences aren't facts for everyone else.
And, to briefly address your last point that Toronto would be fine if we didn't build M-G, that's a ridiculous point. Obviously keeping the status-quo wouldn't make anything
worse than the status-quo, that's the entire point of the term
status quo. The issue is whether we would be better or worse with M-G replacing the warehouses.