^Interesting that the article conveniently ignores the millions of dollars of contributions towards the public realm improvement fund, and the physical area enhancements that came along with the proposal. These pedestrian and transit improvements will only encourage commuters to use more sustainable modes of transport - increasing its offset.
And god forbid we replace old buildings with newer, more energy efficient ones. If it costs the earth anything to do so, we simply shouldn’t. The idea of slating a new development for its ‘embodied energy & emissions’ is valid, but diminishes the kind of steady, reasonable progress that is
actually possible - like the area/energy efficiency improvements we’re seeing with 270 Park.
It showcases a purely reductive approach to debating future development in my opinion.