I'm going to go for a middle road here and interject that while I understand Babel's take on buildings (and there are many others on the forum who appreciate buildings from primarily an aesthetic perspective) that it's only one possible way of looking at the built environment. Aesthetics and innovation are worthy and interesting, but for me the question very broadly of whether a building is "good" for the city is actually more interesting. Not that I have a problem with an aesthetic approach, but for architecture I frequently find it wanting.
I frequently wonder whether a building is good for the city, which is one of the reasons I consider myself open to mediocre or average buildings and their merits. For instance, 18 Yonge strikes me as bland, but harmless, from a city building point of view. I would say that by offering a respite of vacuousness for the lower Yonge pedestrian and possible opportunities for commercial opportunities, it is kinder to its surroundings than they warrant (and they are unlikely to return any favours soon). From this point of view, it is an admirable building and welcome on the cityscape. Certainly not innovative or iconic, but of merit.
Of course, I have absolutely no issue with the fact that 18 Yonge would exist below babel's radar (I'm guessing). But if one were to take Toronto (or any city) and remove the non-innovative-non-iconic buildings they would all be reduced to windswept barrens. Queen Street is a great example, lined with frequently horrendous buildings, yet beloved by many.
I do have to say, though, in response to babel, that a perusal of any architectural publication with buildings of anywhere shows that pretty much anything built recently could be anywhere. I don't find the comment that something could be anywhere to have meaning.