Customer Reviews

National Trust Guide/San Francisco: America's Guide for Architecture and History Travelers (National Trust City Guides)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

My third day in San Francisco, I left the National Trust Guide to San Francisco in my room. It is not the architectural guide book I expected it to be. Dry and talky, the book is long on background and short on facts about individual buildings. Dozens of intriguing buildings are omitted and there is almost nothing about engineering. Peter Wiley's book may be a decent introduction to the city, but reading it did not heighten my anticipation before flying west, or strengthen my appreciation after arriving.

The weaknesses of this guide stand in contrast to the strengths of the AIA guides to major cities. These architect-written guides are exhaustive. The Boston, Chicago and New York books in particular make excellent travel guides as well as desk references. They mix building descriptions with history, and delightful nuggets of information that deepen your appreciation of the place and its builders. There's nothing dry about these books. When it comes to criticism, the editors can be delightfully bitchy.

Between politics and earthquakes, San Francisco is not an easy place to build. But SF AIA members, please find the time to draft a guide your craft and your city deserve. One that is worth schlepping up and down the hills.

Peter Wiley takes the reader on a great tour of San Francisco. A perfect gift for a friends who's visiting or those of us who live here in San Francisco. I found a number of hidden treasures that I honestly didn't know about before reading this book.

This thorough history of San Francisco combined with several walking tours makes the past palpable to those here today. His vivid descriptions of San Francisco from the frontier days to the present significantly illuminate the many walking tours through the city. I have recommended the book to others curious about why this city has its unique look and feel.

Even the most orthodox of post-colonial, politically-correct revisionists have to admit that MOST of what San Francisco is today is because of the United States and its values. San Francisco, for all intents and purposes, didn't exist before 1846, so why does the author still feel it necessary to bore the reader with blather about the United States "stealing" California from Mexico or referring to the "so-called conquest"? Writing about San Francisco as if it somehow "belonged" to any nation other than the United States is just plain stupid. So I wish the author had spared us the politically-correct drivel about the noble Californios and Mexicans and (even!) Spanish. It's as if he says, "The United States sucks for doing what it did in California. Now let me tell you about the magnificent city it built." That said, the history section (the first half of the book) is better than the generally incomplete architectural survey. San Francisco is so crammed with good stuff that a complete architectural survey is a tall order, so it's forgivable. The most obvious omissions are the newer sections of Pacific Heights and Richmond. Incidentally, these are the places built most recently with new wealth, which is as good as non-existent to those inclined toward political correctness.

San Francisco is an American city, and the National Trust has an obligation to support that notion. This book leaves one wondering if we "stole" the city from Mexico. Nonsense. Literally, other than the Mission and assorted place names, San Francisco started in 1849.