I think I may have overstated my case here, but only in what I guess is a futile effort to describe a somewhat intangible quality that I feel contributes to making a good city great.
I do not have a problem with review panels and city initiatives. On the contrary, not only do I think that they are steps in the right direction, but that they can actually be critical, providing they have teeth and substance and are not there merely for propoganda or other purely political aims. Isn't that fair to say? Also, I do think that Toronto is awakening to the sorts of issues I've described as being more important in other places, but we're just not quite there yet. In the meantime, I think it is helpful to look at what works elsewhere, to the extent that many of what we might consider great cities may have certain underlaying traits in common.
"if Hakim goes for a really high end design by say Jean Nouvel, would the business be able to support the cost of the design? And if it is able to do so, what kind of surcharge would they have to go for in order to pay for it? The city can mandate competent design, but not superior design."
I'm talking about a phenomenon whereby If the public were demonstrably outraged enough by an offending building proposal, the negative PR may be strong enough a consideration to make it a good business decision to either change the design or relocate to a less contentious site. In other words, I am agreeing with you that the city cannot legislate taste and quality, but public opinion can sometimes wield power to mandate better quality and more appropriate design. The private and public sectors will take heed once they realize that the public cares and is paying attention. We have had notable examples of this in Toronto, such as with the proposed ROM condo. We just need this sort of passion about our city to be more consistent and more comprehensive.
