Views expressed in this section are independent and do not represent the opinion of the editors. What distinguishes Renzo Piano's (and Richard Rogers') Centre Pompidou in Paris (1971-77) from Renzo Piano's Times Building in New York (2000-07)? Thirty years separate these two architectural products, three decades which saw a considerable shift in city makers' understanding of the scope of architecture in the urban environment. Differing notions of the role of architecture and the figure of the architect underlie the commissions for those two Renzo Pianos: in the first case an unknown young architect, devising an experimental cultural centre in Paris; in the second a globally affirmed star in architecture's firmament, endowing a large corporation with architectural gravitas. His is a well-known trajectory, followed by many other architects scaling the ladder of success over recent decades.Situated within an already substantial body of literature on this global phenomenon, producing buildings that derive from their architects' fame both their legitimation and the promise of urban success, Starchitecture (now in its second edition) seeks to unveil the mechanisms behind the deployment of architecture--via the medium of its cacophonic variant labelled starchitecture--in cities.On the one hand, the book targets starchitects' dominant critique and fixation with issues of style and aesthetics. The authors explicitly declare no interest in expressing a judgmental assessment, switching the parameters of evaluation by redirecting public architectural debates from aesthetic and stylistic judgements (key to real estate and policymakers' marketing strategies) to the way starchitects' projects contribute to the public domain of the city, regardless of style and outlook.City makers, planners and politicians are the other target, with the authors criticizing the inclination to simply rely on choosing the right starchitect in order to activate virtuous processes of urban regeneration and development. Branded architecture, the book argues, cannot just be used as a surrogate strategy for weak public planning or to replace democratic debate about the development of urban areas. The message seems to be that spectacular architecture cannot (and probably shouldn't) be stopped and that its implementation or failure is not an architectural problem but a planning one. So, the authors argue, local planning institutions should be strengthened, 'making them technically equipped for engaging with spectacular development projects, local pro-growth coalitions, and the transnational forces behind them' (p. 207) because, as they prove through a discussion of many global cities (such as Abu Dhabi, New York, Paris, Milan and London), the real effect of branded buildings does not depend on the degree of celebrity of their designers, but on the physical, social and political environment that welcomes them, and on the solidity of planning and urban visions supporting them. It follows that starchitectural success or failure is to be understood as stric...