I mean, this post is in a way a good starting point to dig into the substantive issues with the notion that "this proposal does not represent an appropriate transition in scale between taller building and low-density neighbourhood." This is a subjective statement, and presenting it as some sort of objective truth does not pass muster. Suggesting even that there should be any transition between taller and shorter elements is itself a subjective statement. So, statements like "it's simply bad urban design. Putting tall buildings directly next to 2 to 3 storey homes would feel like standing next to a giant" that are seemingly presented as given facts, are of course going to be open to ridicule (and rightly so). Doubling down and defending them by saying, literally, "because reasons"? Yeah, you're going to have a rough ride around here.
Now, does the City have a tendency to bend over backwards to "protect" low density neighbourhoods from development pressures? Of course. Is that tendency in fact enshrined in policy? Yes, and it is of course one element on which many advocates of housing and land use reform focus intensely (again, rightly so).
The rest of the post that launched this mini-discussion isn't really worth engaging with because it's so laced with exaggeration and hyperbole.