Raise the Hammer

I appreciate this response. Well reasoned and explained. I've yet to be convinced by anyone that highrises are bad. When I'm standing at the Terraces on King it might as well be 50 floors instead of 11. In fact, I'm working on a piece with some historic context that shows Hamilton was actually headed towards the type of urban development we now see in Vancouver long before Vancouver was.

That Athens photo is just stupid. I'm talking about allowing 25-30 storey buildings in a district filled with 25-30 storey buildings, not at King and Paisley.

I made this clear above, but I'm also only talking about right downtown, although I fail to see a problem with high-rise buildings on major arterials in other parts of the city.
For example, I haven't seen any detailed drawings yet, but I like the preliminary concept for these buildings on Upper James and Stonechurch: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost...

No shadow impacts on anyone, ground floor retail, set at the sidewalk with parking in behind, modern design etc.... Main St and segments of King, Bay, Cannon, Hunter etc..... could use similar type of developments. As could the Thistle Club site IMO.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the Portland v. Vancouver example. Portland has had several new condo towers built in the past 5-10 years downtown and along the waterfront. I think we should do the same, and design the surrounding main streets to feel like King, James or Locke - businesses oriented to the street.

Ryan and I have never seen eye to eye on this issue by the way, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think his opinion slightly shifted after a visit to Manhattan.
At the end of the day - towers are not oppressive. Blank, crappy streetwalls like we see in many of Toronto's towers are oppressive. A 9 storey building with a blank streetwall is far more damaging to the city than a 50 storey building with a great streetwall.