Peterme posted an interesting review and commentary on his site
http://peterme.com/ which I added a coment to. His comment program, however, has gone askew, so I am posting my comment here. But you should read his review first. And then this:
San Francisco might well be described as De Tocqueville once said of Phildadelphia, "it's sole defect, I repeat, is to be monotonous in its beauty".
I first hit S.F. in 1950, and might still be there yet if the labor unions hadn't had such a controlling grip on job applications. After a few days of hiring hall corruption I headed south to L.A. and still be there yet.
Regarding San Francisco, I have to agree with Kotkin, except for his belittlement of its mayor and service industry. That is pure bitchiness.
Otherwise, I have enjoyed S.F. as a visitor several hundred times in the past 55 years. But I have never thought of it as a city, I even refer to it as The City as an ironic comment on its pretension. And no way is it now or ever has been an art or culture center. It is, and has for decades been a holiday destination. I remember Herb Caen saying so himself in columns dating back to the early 60's.
Cable cars, bright orange bridge, chinatown, a twisting street, Fisherman's Wharf, Candlestick Park. These are holiday icons and attractions, not the stuff of urban sinew and muscle, not: HOG Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads and the Nation’s Freight Handler; Stormy, husky, brawling, City of the Big Shoulders: not a Chicago.
Where else I disagree with Kotkin is that he seems to think this is a bad thing. Or that there is some methodology available to determine what any city can, or should, be. I say let San Francisco be San Francisco. I need to enjoy it every couple of months or so.