Only in terms of the sun. No matter what side of the river it's on, it's still going to squeeze the riverfront into a tiny pathway with three massive buildings looming right overhead. It's still going to block access to the river for an entire city block. That's why I initially compared it to Toronto's "mistake by the lake", which also happens to be on the north side of the lakefront, but is still considered to be a huge failure in waterfront planning.
The context of the developments are very different. The ones you highlight are right next to a destination: the ferry docks, which brings a million+ people a year through the park complex, and strands them in a concrete holding pen where there is nothing to do but look up at the surrounding towers. They also existed in a sea of parking for the better part of 5 decades. Also important contextual point: they were the only tall buildings south of the Toronto Star Building for decades, the only interference of their otherwise perfect lake view, with a view of them wdithwise. I'm sure the continual distaste of harbour developments didn't come from The Star being exposed to construction, a loss of their view and a general NIMBY attitude from them, no, not at all.
The development below doesn't fail because of its approach to the waterfront side, it fails because of the lack of connection to the rest of the city. The super block is barely permeable for 425 m, and incredibly auto oriented - autos don't just dominate the street side, but they dominate the waterfront side too. In contrast, the Hat site is 200m wide. The Toronto site also has, as far as I observed while living there, and using street view today, no retail facilities even partially oriented towards the water. There is also no method to walk the site boundaries. By contrast, the Hat is set back from the roads on its east and west side by 7 m setback on the west end, and it looks like 3.5 m on the east end, and has retail on the corners to draw people in.
What could be done differently on the Hat site while still maintaining the density required to develop an expensive next to the river site? It is surrounded by institutional uses on all 4 sides, save for where it borders the casino. Breaking the podium in two doesn't connect the river to anyone more closely (it isn't blocking a desire path). There isn't even a pathway along the river at the moment.
What would be the other option? 4 buildings like the short one right next to the Simmons building in the east village, just without any of the amenities of a neighbourhood? Maybe a single more conventional tower at the north end of the site?
Personally I think having as high of density as possibly is the best option given that we want public access to the river, and for that river access to be safe. The restaurants and density help fulfill CPTED goals.
Here is another Toronto waterfront building that brings height directly to the waterfront without a tiered setback:
Is it buildings looming, or is it good landscape planning and retail that makes it much much much better?
If you chopped The Hat like this, does it really change your opinion?
