Its a good piece, correctly noting that this planting technique is not a panacea; its a trade, a bit more height, a bit faster, but you may get some structurally weaker trees (unbalanced growth) and you will get a significant number of plants dying off.
The claim of 100-year old forest in 10 years is utter nonsense though, and should be dismissed, you get nothing of the sort.
There will not be an 60ft+ trees in a 10-year old forest, unless you planted 30ft trees in the first place. Which is not what happens, and isn't practical.
I'll follow Leslie Look out closely to see if it performs better than what I've seen elsewhere.
Still, in general, I'm in favour of more planting, as long as the right species are chosen.
****
Our real weak spots in Toronto in respect of forest management are:
1) Properly, aggressively, managing non-native, invasive species (we don't)
2) We rarely invest in restoring the under-story of forests, with herbaceous plants. (ie. ferns, grasses, wildflowers).
3) Finally, we really don't invest enough in critical and diverse habitats. We tend to do 'basic forest' a lot with a few wetlands for good measure; and now, we are doing more work on Meadows as well.
But we rarely, if ever, seek to recreate swamps, bogs, fens, clusters of rare/extirpated/endangered plants, we also don't spend enough time on creating 'interior forest' space, making sure to create forest with enough size/depth to accommodate a range of wildlife/plants that don't like 'edge habitats'.