I referred to the straw man in my original post. Assuming you're familiar with the term, it's the apparent assumption in your initial post that objectors in this thread are hung up on whether the continued existence of the crane is the problem, or whether it's a symptom of the problem. But this distinction mischaracterizes--weakens--the original objection because this objection, as I said originally, isn't about what in fact the real problem is but that there continues to be a (significant) problem at all.
Regardless, and here I speak only for my self, I don't expect anything I say here to have any influence whatsoever on how any builder in Toronto, or anywhere, operates. So raising that issue, or raising the related point that for this reason no builder will change given what I say in this thread, is, again, orthogonal to the original objection: that L Tower's construction indicates considerable incompetence.
As a causal observer, I reasonably don't expect any more from my comments and for that reason my comments can't reasonably be evaluated as if I do.