Originally Posted by lrt's friend
Now, why would Ken Gray publish support for a project? The one exception being Lansdowne simply because others have been very vocal opponents. Otherwise, it is really pointless. So, just saying that Ken Gray opposes projects 99% of the time is meaningless. Obviously, there are many projects that he doesn't comment on.
I don't understand the logic behind your post. Are you implying that journalists should only write about things that they disagree with, or as in the case of Lansdowne, when they want to give a contrary view? If this is correct, then are you arguing that journalists should never write about things that they agree with?
There are numerous reasons why KG could write about a project that he supports. For starters, such a post / column would provide an example of what, in his view, the city should follow in terms of development. It could also provide support to a good developer, in the same way that local papers promote worthy bands, restaurants, bars, artists, community activists, athletes, etc.
with good reviews.
My comment about Ken Gray opposing 99% of developments is not meaningless. Rather, it highlights the fact that for all of his bluster that he is pro-intensification, when push comes to shove, his instinct is to say "no." It also pinpoints the feeling of many people on this site that KG actually does not support urban intensification in practice, despite what he claims in theory.
I also agree with waterloowarrior that KG limits his analysis to height-related issues, and that his blog is silent on many other forms of developments. For instance, on Merivale Road in Nepean, more strip-mall like stores are being built. These buildings are not tall, but they are (in my view) another step in the destruction of this part of Ottawa. The Bulldog, however, does not criticize this form of development, even though in my opinion a strip mall causes a lot more damage to a city than rezoning a lot so a condo building can be taller.