Some people object that he might make big money, others object on the basis he might lose money. I don't see any reason he'd demolish unless he had reached the 70% sold mark or something like that. I see these proposed buildings adding to the public good - practically the ONLY project that comes with a world-class art collection! Is your last point (above) an argument against the very existence of the Central Business District - the Financial Core? This thread gets more outlandish by the day.
Just to clarify, my problem with this project is Mirvish's "my way or the highway" attitude to civic engagement: "I'm giving you Gehry and a bunch of AB/EX, now let me demolish these heritage buildings and build one of the biggest development projects this city's seen since the 1970s. Don't try to tell me how this project could be improved. I don't make compromises."
This is the kind of attitude that prevailed in the Mad Men era of the 1960s when development was dominated by a small group of corporate elites who were given free reign to do whatever they wanted. I'm not against the CBD per say, but we certainly would have planned it differently these days than they did in the 1960s.
I'm sure starchitecture fanboys will say, "but great architecture can't make compromises! How dare the public try to tell the great Frank Gehry how to improve his building! No committee ever designed good architecture!" And they would be very, very far from the truth. The fact is that two of Toronto's greatest buildings in the last decade were designed through close community consultation: Gehry's AGO and Alsop's OCAD. Both projects had to be extremely sensitive to the surrounding neighbourhood, to greenspace, to heritage, to public space and public uses. And it is arguably BECAUSE of those compromises that we ended up with two very original buildings rather than a clone like the ROM Crystal, aka the Denver Crystal, aka the Las Vegas Crystal.
And even if the democratic process didn't produce good architecture, I'd still choose democracy and community consultation over it any day. For those who think architecture is more important than democracy, perhaps they should go live under one of those pampered sultans in the UAE.