I think some clarification needs to be made as to the current state of this particular stretch of Yonge. Can the current architecture (for the most part) even be classified as third (or even fourth) rate? I actually happen to prefer Aura to the tiny shops and houses that are currently there. Are the current "podiums" (the current buildings' Yonge frontage) all that great? What about the horrible retail that calls the area home? Yes, I do see your point that it could become much nicer if more developers took the "Five" route, but again, that is a matter of personal preference.
Actually it is not "personal preference" - we have been through this debate before - one can prefer all they want, but at the end of the day, there are reasons why Foster creates masterpieces while G+C doesn't. Five is nice, but not every site have the same flexibility as the site for Five offers, considering the setback of the tower from the Yonge Street. And lest we think Five is the perfect model - even the restored buildings couldn't escape being converted into the ubquitous RBC.
As to the substandard retail in little shops, I see it as a transient presence that will be replaced - hopefully with more of an eye towards the Queen Street W model (as imperfect as it maybe). Tearing them down doesn't do the history of the street justice, nor the architecture, much less land use.
I'm not saying that Yonge should look like Bay v2.0 either. I think Yonge can be both modern AND different from Bay. Why doesn't the city take measure to actually make Yonge a premier shopping destination, instead of letting the name do all the work? In addition to mandating certain minimum requirements for new development (2s retail, double floor heights, etc.), they could also increase commercial taxes specifically for the area. How would developers possibly get away with Aura level retail if that were to happen? They would have no choice but to cater to higher end retailers.
These things takes time? And you must realize that the city does NOT have the authority to set commercial tax rate specifically for the area, save TIF (and that's usually not a recommended tool, and the context which it applies to doesn't exist either). One simply can't force these things.
The question is, should our city be pursuing a vision of Yonge St where the current built form is maintained (and restored), while adding density in the back, or something entirely different? In my opinion, the latter is a better option.
I support the former - density is already increasing significantly along Yonge (even if it doesn't directly abutt it) - there is no overriding rationale for eliminating a strip that has significant heritage significance and dare I say charm. Besides, the track record of the "something completely different" is neither any different from what's happening all over the city, nor particularly impressive, where it did. On top of all that, what's been proposed really doesn't prevent rebuilding where appropriate - it just sets up some framework to see how everything would fit into the vision,
Quoting Michigan Avenue as a model is pretty pointless - Yonge isn't Michigan in Chicago, and if you want an analogue, it'd be University Avenue or Bloor.
AoD