Not to mention it's an analogy mired completely in the 1950's. The Ideal is what, Betty Crocker waiting by the door in an apron with a glass of bourbon in her hand?

I don't know much about architecture so I can't make an informed comment on a dearth of home grown architectural stars and structures. I wouldn't mind a few more "name-brand" architectural landmarks to explore, but if it came down to a trade-off between that and the world-class symphony, ballet, opera, circus schools, or whatever else we already have, I'm not sure I'd be so gung-ho. Not every city can be a pinnacle of every kind of art form, and I think San Francisco's doing damned well for a city of 700,000.

That was a stupid article. San Francisco is a very pretty city. Architecture critics just care about big public buildings. That is fine and all but it isn't what makes a city livable. Who lives next door to sfmoma?

It's an interesting question and I think you're largely right. After all, as Joeo indicates, both critics and architects tend to focus more on how a project looks in renderings and models than on how it feels in a dense urban context. Frank Lloyd Wright, the American architects' hero, had an almost entirely suburban sensibility. He expected everyone to come and go by car or by small plane. He refused to consider what this would do the streets -- evacuate them of pedestrians and turn them into polluted noisy traffic sewers. Similarly, starchitects like Gehry and Zaha Hadid make gorgeous drawings and their buildings act like daggers in the heart of a world they consider banal, rather than caressing loving care for a world that is growing into adulthood.

A few cities have shown that it's possible to have both -- to have very interesting buildings, sometimes by big names, that complement, rather than obstruct, the natural beauty and the civic space.

In Berlin, the government strictly regulates the shape of buildings, as does SF. The buildings must complement the street in size and bulk and also, I believe, in color and transparency (window area). But within that formal decree, the city has experienced a blossoming of architectural creativity. Frank Gehry's most interesting building (OK, I haven't been to it, but from the pictures anyway) is the headquarters of DG Bank in Berlin. Note the shocking contrast between the conservative exterior and the kinky interior -- very German.

I was just in Mexico City, where the Condesa neighborhood is going through another building boom. It has some fantastic modernist structures and a lot of great renovations of industrial boxes and of classic Spanish colonials. The place feels unified by a combination of its very heavy street flora, its consistent street wall, and its broad sidewalks, all of which give the place a unified feel in spite of architectural stylistic chaos.

For some reason, despite our very high real estate prices, developers and public officials here haven't been able to do what Berlin and Mexico have done. I think the problem lies largely with our goofy neighborhood groups, which make hash of any city planning and architectural ambition. With their petty complaints of increased shade on a third-story deck or potential peeping toms able to see in an open bathroom window, they are able to force developers to alter designs into strange angled and stair-stepped shapes that in my opinion detract from both the immediate street environment and also from the overall city vista. Meanwhile our city officials seem forcibly opposed to the idea that streets should be works of art, insisting on making them as drab and functional as possible. Even Valencia, where I live, with its creative design, is still wrecked by its narrow sidewalks and pathetic little street trees stuffed in tiny holes. Let's not think about 19th Avenue.

Anyway, the last thing the city needs is another kvetcher whining about the lack of this or that. If this person thinks we need some kind of building or another, let's see him or her organize financially and politically and build something.

PS: I'm not sure if you're right about the requirement for light colors in skyscrapers. If what you say is true, I wonder how the JPMorgan building on Mission Street ever got approved -- it's made of dark green metal and almost black glass, looking like a stereo component. I used to hate it for being too dark but now I like the contrast next to all the puce and beige structures downtown.

I shoulda read the article before writing in. I take back my last paragraph. Rybczynski is one of the finest architectural writers in the world. I think you misread him a bit. A big part of what he is saying is that the city is fantastic because it lacks "great" architecture. He is also saying that our civic buildings are lacking, which is true. That is a tradition in the western U.S., because people here don't believe in civitas. We stick our great urban park out in the suburban fringe of the city and surround it with low-rise structures. We put our museums there, far from transit and dense populations. We put our ball stadium (until the new ball park was built) first in that park and then in Candlestick Point, of all places.

Finally, recently, we've been focusing a bit more downtown, with the rebuild of City Hall, the (tragic) new library, the new ball park.

The problem now is that the city isn't designed for civic buildings. City Hall is one of the only buildings that interrupts a street vista. This might be good -- how many more 1 Maritime Plazas could we take? But it would be nice to have at least some parks or civic structures or churches or something that broke up street lines and drew attention to themselves. Again, I blame the engineering mentality at City Hall and the property values mentality among neighbors, along with the lack of a civic sensibility in western Americans generally.

I agree, I'd really rather see SF get more affordable middle-class housing than try and recreate Frank Lloyd Wright or something. If it's one thing SF doesn't need, it's more commercial real-estate.