Weasel words over Barangaroo

Stephen Buzacott is right (''Green game changer or sun blocker?'', November 13-14). Barangaroo is not about height, and never has been. It is about profile, silhouette, elegance of form and that old-fashioned quality called beauty.

It is also about the ground-level experiences and expectations of people walking the streets and trying to find a congenial space offering the views of harbour, open sky, landscape and distinctive architecture that are tellingly absent from most parts of our chaotic and over-corporatised CBD environment.

Now Lend Lease (Letters, November 15) points to its facile and beguiling website animations as evidence of design excellence and sensitivity to solar movement. Richard Rogers gets a predictable accolade from his colleague Ed Lippmann who urges us to embrace the ''benchmark of quality'' and ''dynamic legibility'' of Rogers's C4 design. Tony Caro misses the point with his support for high density (Barangaroo is not a debate about density). And Chris Johnson weighs in with high praise for Rogers's skill in ''externalising the structure'' to create ''an incredibly interesting building''.

The Barangaroo debate is debased by such architectural weasel words, and by the fanciful computerised imagery and self-serving hyperbole emanating from the Lend Lease camp.

But with the city council's release of its powerful case for modification of the Barangaroo concept plan, a tipping point has been reached. Can we trust the state government to give this document the thorough professional assessment it deserves? For Sydney's sake, the answer must be yes.