The only thing disingenuous here, is calling College Park a "run down" part of town. ha ha ha
Does this not have similar height and densities as the G&M buildings? Yes
Does this not set a height precedent for the area it is in? Yes
That stretch of Yonge certainly is (or at least was) run down. Regardless, staff's issues with M+G went beyond height and density, and you know it. I maintain the comparison is disingenuous.
No...it doesn't make sense. It's the "up to" that matters here. At a certain point, diseconomies of scale start to kick in for very tall buildings.
Look...you can tap dance all you want, but you can't change the fact that the loss of profits on 700 units significantly changes the game on this project.
Again, it's already been noted by someone in the industry who attended the meeting that the new scheme is more feasible economically. You keep hammering me for not having Mirvish's balance sheets - well, where is your evidence that the loss of the third tower hurt the economics of the remaining towers? Mirvish hasn't made that claim to my knowledge. So far the only claim I've heard either of them make publicly is that the change was done for purely aesthetic reasons.
Oh wait, according to you he could never had sold them anyway, because downtown Toronto is apparently a difficult place to sell condos. ha ha ha
Pull this leg and it plays Jingle Bells
I clearly never said condos in downtown Toronto, I said luxury condos in the Entertainment District. And please cut the petulant snarkiness. It's not doing you any favours.