Is "genius" relevant?

The first answer would be a question: "...relevant to what?...or to whom?"

So many people use the word in relation to architects such as Wright or Gehry and I make light of their conclusion. Those two might be geniuses or might not; who cares? Such ceaseless hero-worship which attends starchitecture hinders rather than promotes the public conversation which precedes the creation of pleasant places to live.

So let me rephrase the issue: "Is genius relevant to creating cities in which one might desire to live?" That's my question. Such cities could be "great" cities (though who knows what "greatness" is --- sounds like another one of those conclusions which stop discussion rather than forward them) or they could be interesting and comfortable ones. In either case I wonder how much genius has to do with it.

Let me cite an imperfect but spirited and perceptive article at openDemocracy which gets to heart of the issue, as I phrase it, of Genius? or Good rules? It is titled The future is classical and explains why, for the day-in-day-out pleasure of life, genius is nice but largely irrelevant:

Architecture, it should be remembered, is first and foremost a vernacular art, like dance and clothing. Although there are the great projects, and the great architects who succeed in them, both are exceptions. We build because we need to, and for a purpose.

Most people who build have no special talent, and no high artistic ideals. For them, aesthetic taste is important not because they have something special or entrancing to communicate, but precisely because they do not. Being decent and alert to their neighbours, they nevertheless want to do what is right. Hence repeatability and rule-guidedness are vital architectural resources.

Style must be so defined that anyone, however uninspired, can make good use of it, and add thereby to the public dwelling space that is our common possession...

It is not genius which creates cities worthy of humanity but adherence to time-tested rules. Oh genius is OK, so long as it knows the rules well-enough to know if, how and when to break them. And so long as it has sufficient self-confidence to not need to impress by breaking the rules unless there is a good reason.

The answer is of course empirical and must comes from each individual's review of their own experience of place. Where do you really want to spend (public) time? I think you might find that such places are surprisingly prosaic.