This article appears to have a lot of the writer's thoughts & opinions. She brown-noses Saint Keesmaat, so much so that you'd think she was a close relative. She didn't provide one different viewpoint, except for "bombastic C. Hume." Nothing like a disparaging remark to fluff-off another opinion.

As the old saying goes "do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?"
 
E.B. said:
This article appears to have a lot of the writer's thoughts & opinions. She brown-noses Saint Keesmaat, so much so that you'd think she was a close relative. She didn't provide one different viewpoint, except for "bombastic C. Hume." Nothing like a disparaging remark to fluff-off another opinion.
Click to expand...

Ah, but your putting down both "Saint Keesmat" and the (allegedly) brown-nosing writer isn't even remotely disparaging. Do as I say, not as I do?
 
E.B. said:
This article appears to have a lot of the writer's thoughts & opinions. She brown-noses Saint Keesmaat, so much so that you'd think she was a close relative. She didn't provide one different viewpoint, except for "bombastic C. Hume." Nothing like a disparaging remark to fluff-off another opinion.

As the old saying goes "do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?"
Click to expand...

Versus anonymous posters on an internet forum?

AoD
 
Christopher Hume is one of the least consistent critics with the most incoherent opinions I can possibly imagine. He should not be immune to criticism just because he writes for a big paper.
 
Lenser said:
Ah, but your putting down both "Saint Keesmat" and the (allegedly) brown-nosing writer isn't even remotely disparaging. Do as I say, not as I do?
Click to expand...

True enough. I should have been more diplomatic. Aside from that, this article doesn't have the ring of truth. Especially when she quotes things like the following:

"What finally convinced him to stop pushing for the original plan was a third-party financial analysis, commissioned by Keesmaat, of the project’s viability. It concluded that constructing three mega-towers in such a tight space would be significantly more expensive and complicated than building two. If he built three towers, Mirvish stood to lose money. If he built two, everyone would win. When she handed Mirvish the report, his jaw dropped".

The writer says “Mirvish went to his friend Peter Kofman for ideas. Kofman, had worked with Mirvish on two earlier condo projects”. The article says “Kofman proposed a radical solution: why not tear it all down and start fresh?

So, Kofman, Gehry & Mirvish aren’t smart enough to think about the site, what could be built and what the prospect for profit was? Does anyone really believe that? The writer says that Mirvish jaw dropped when he was handed the report. How does she know that? did Mirvish tell her? not likely.

The writer says she wasn't able to have much access to discuss anything without his lawyer there. So how much info & dirt did she get from Mirvish? not much.

The writer made this article is so anti-Mirvish, it's not funny.

Regarding AofD's comment "Versus anonymous posters on an internet forum?" Aren't we all anonymous on this site. Is your real name AlvinofDiaspar?
 
Last edited:
E.B. said:
Aside from that, this article doesn't have the ring of truth.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? How can this "ring of truth" of yours be measured?

The writer made this article is so anti-Mirvish, it's not funny.
Click to expand...

The pro-three tower proposal are so pro-Mirvish it's not even funny.

Funny how Mirvish and Kofman have come forward and made positive noises about the two-tower proposal. Could it be that the three tower version wasn't as viable as they assumed? And if it's so, wasn't it nice of Keesmaat to tell them?
 
argus said:
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? How can this "ring of truth" of yours be measured?



The pro-three tower proposal are so pro-Mirvish it's not even funny.

Funny how Mirvish and Kofman have come forward and made positive noises about the two-tower proposal. Could it be that the three tower version wasn't as viable as they assumed? And if it's so, wasn't it nice of Keesmaat to tell them?
Click to expand...

I've been very pro M+G, still am, but I didnt see the article as unduly negative to Mirvish. The "jaw dropped" comment was suspect. Mirvish is the key character here so he'll attract the strongest statements positive & negative.
 
buildup:

Yeah I don't find anything particularly negative about the portrayal of Mirvish - someone with strong opinions, stubborn, but have a definite vision/desire of excellence in the future direction of the city - I thought that was pretty kind and fair. The involved parties was certainly gracious enough to say that everyone is happy at the end, which said something.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Interesting that at the July 10th council vote that both Josh Matlow and Kristyn Wong-Tam voted against the project (Rob Ford joined them in voting against an amendment). The local replacement councilor Ceta Ramkhalawansingh voted in support (as Vaughan would have). I think the key figure in most media reporting that has been missing is Adam Vaughan - project would have never emerged from the process with an approval without him working to make it happen.
 
Mike in TO said:
Interesting that at the July 10th council vote that both Josh Matlow and Kristyn Wong-Tam voted against the project (Rob Ford joined them in voting against an amendment). The local replacement councilor Ceta Ramkhalawansingh voted in support (as Vaughan would have). I think the key figure in most media reporting that has been missing is Adam Vaughan - project would have never emerged from the process with an approval without him working to make it happen.
Click to expand...

Did Vaughan make a tactical/political decision to lower his profile at some point, being unsure where this was headed in the court of public opinion?
 
Mike in TO said:
Interesting that at the July 10th council vote that both Josh Matlow and Kristyn Wong-Tam voted against the project (Rob Ford joined them in voting against an amendment). The local replacement councilor Ceta Ramkhalawansingh voted in support (as Vaughan would have). I think the key figure in most media reporting that has been missing is Adam Vaughan - project would have never emerged from the process with an approval without him working to make it happen.
Click to expand...

The very fact that Ceta voted for the project would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Her story would be a very, very interesting one to listen to. Some background:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/a-new-look-a-new-bond-with-residents/article1065641/

AoD
 
Last edited:
buildup said:
Did Vaughan make a tactical/political decision to lower his profile at some point, being unsure where this was headed in the court of public opinion?
Click to expand...

I don't think so (well except for the fact that he left city hall to run federally and local planning issues were not really part of the campaign or debate on issues between candidates) - I don't believe it was a tactical decision not to talk about the project, it just wasn't an issue in a federal campaign. He was always very good with constit & stakeholder work on planning files to make things happen - most of which happens behind the scenes. He was always fairly open about supporting the project and trying to bring various groups with diverging points of view together - a good quote I heard more than once from him on this specific project was that "it would be too easy to say 'no', I'm looking for a way we can say 'yes' ".
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Toronto Life story:

http://www.torontolife.com/informer/features/2014/07/14/david-mirvish-on-the-edge/

AoD
Click to expand...


Wow, the author is so clearly biased in her dislike for Mirvish it's hard to read - it drips off the pages. I dont undestand how she could possibly know some of the points she tried to make - "his jaw dropped" like this was recorded in the minutes of the meeting between Keesmaat and Mirvish? Or was she there? Does she expect us to believe that only Keesmaat had the foresight to calculate the potential return on the original proposal? That Mirvish put this massive proposal together without doing the math? Get real.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top