So now it seems we have the worst of both worlds, nobody agrees on what an appropriate treatment of the site is and we are painted into a corner...
We've ruled out the extremes and we've also ruled out everything in between the extremes, whether we're talking about design, height, massing, the walkway & people spaces, or even the uniqueness of the overall approach. Unique is unsuitable, generic is unsuitable, middle-of-the-road is unsuitable. The most recent concept was about as site-specific as anything we've ever seen in Victoria, but it was unsuitable. This is what happens when weasel-words like "sensitivity" and "appropriateness" dominate the conversation. These terms can be far too elusive (which is also why some people like to over-use them).
Re: the following point, the refined 5-story version that I preferred was so good precisely because it emphasized the stepping & layering rather than spoiling it. The old warehouses seemed to be standing on their own well in front of the major part of the new construction, and a small set of new townhouses (also set apart from the major part of the new construction) occupied the same line that the warehouses occupied. So you had the smaller buildings -- both old and new -- along the waterfront walkway, and you had the bulk of the new construction set back behind them.
...it violated the staggered step back effect planners wished the waterfront had...