The Significance of the Golden Gate Bridge
By
Your names here
Class name
Khannoussa
Date
Golden Gate
2
“Our world of today…revolves completely around things which at one time couldn’t be done
because they were supposedly beyond the limits of human endeavor. Don’t be afraid to dream”
–Golden Gate Bridge Engineer Joseph B. Strauss (Brown 10)
Throughout the 20th century, there have been innovations in many technical fields. Cars,
television, film, the internet, frozen food, skyscrapers, and even the nuclear bomb have all
changed the way in which people view the world. There have also been many innovations over
the last century in engineering that were once unimaginable. One such engineering wonder is
San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, one of the most impressive suspension bridges ever built.
Suspension bridges, first designed in the 19th century, contain two pairs of pillars, one on each
end of the body of water, or gorge the bridge spans, with two or more cables slung between
them. The deck of the bridge is suspended from these cables, which are then anchored into the
ground (Wikepedia). Aesthetically pleasing, if more expensive than conventional bridges,
suspension bridges are built because they can span longer distances, from 2,000 to 7,000 feet
(Nova) than low bridges, and can be built very high over a body of water, allowing large ships to
pass under easily. The suspension bridge also provides many challenges: “In every aspect of its
design, a suspension bridge challenges the traditional assumptions of bridge design, but in ways
that require an understanding and appreciation, an informed view, of the principles being
challenged” (Van der Zee 107) Because of the suspension bridge’s inherent attributes, and
because a challenging design seems the appropriate one for a challenging project, a suspension
bridge was the perfect way to bridge the Golden Gate Strait, that connects San Francisco Bay
with the Pacific Ocean. San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge is a significant achievement in
engineering. The extent of the bridge’s significance is evident through an examination of the
Golden Gate
3
history of its construction, its legislation and finance, its innovative engineering and design, its
structural integrity, and the symbolic significance the bridge holds for its environment.
For its time, the Golden Gate Bridge was a significant undertaking, and its complex
history is evidence of its significance. The Golden Gate Bridge was first “commanded” in 1869
by self-proclaimed Joshua “Norton I, Emperor of the United States.” However, it was in 1917
that San Francisco City Engineer M.M. O’Shaughnessy embraced the idea in a more formal way.
O’Shaughnessy approached international bridge builder Joseph Strauss with the idea, and the
project of building the Golden Gate Bridge began. As City Engineer, O’Shaughnessy wanted to
be the Chief Engineer of one of San Francisco’s boldest undertakings. Unfortunately,
O’Shaughnessy lost the notoriety that would come to those involved in the project as Strauss’
promotional abilities won him the coveted position (Van der Zee 45-46, 50). Thus, Strauss
began the creation of one of the most significant engineering structures ever built in the United
States, the initial cost estimates for the bridge being $25-$30 million, expensive especially in lieu
of the depression, with an estimated span of 4000 feet (Museum 1).
In order to carry out such a considerable construction project, legislation was necessary.
In 1921, State Assemblyman Frank Coombs of the California State Legislature drafted a bill,
which would later become a law, to create the “incorporated bridge district” in order to deal with
issues such as financing, construction, and the operation of the project as a toll bridge. On
January 13, 1923, Mayor Rolph called a large meeting to “consider ways and means of carrying
the project forward,” which 21 county representatives attended, officially forming the “Bridgingthe-Golden Gate Association” (Museum 2). In 1924, Marin and San Francisco Counties applied
to the War Department for a government permit to build the Golden Gate Bridge, and on
December 20, 1924, the permit’s approval came through (Museum 2). Strauss and his team also
Golden Gate
4
submitted two applications to the Secretary of War. The first was to allow the project to include
roads through military property, which the Secretary eventually approved. The second was for
the approval of the proposed bridge clearances, and after a June 30, 1930 hearing involving
discussion of shipping interests, on August 11, 1930, the Secretary approved this second
application as well. Construction of the bridge began on January 5, 1933 “under the aegis of the
Works Projects Administration (WPA), a program instigated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to
create public works through federal funds and alleviate the effects of the Great Depression”
(Wikipedia). Thus the bridge’s legistlation is significant in that it occurred in local, state, and
national capacities.
San Francisco voters also played a part in the legislative and financial roads to the
construction of the bridge. Voters passed a bridge bond proposed in 1930 for $35 million
(Museum 3) which passed “by a three-to-one margin, perhaps feeling that the bridge represented
a positive move on behalf of local investment and jobs” (UC Berkeley 2). The City of San
Francisco also levied a $.03 tax as the manner of paying for “preliminary engineering, legal and
other work” (Museum 2). Once the bridge was completed, the city charged a toll in order to
create a revenue source. The toll began at $.50 each way, with $.05 added for more than three
passengers. In 1950, the toll dropped to $.40, and it dropped again in 1955 to $.25 each way.
The city raised the southbound toll in 1968 to $.50, and the northbound toll became free, but
today, the southbound toll is $5.00 (Highway). While the original bonds for the bridge have
since been paid, the toll is still necessary, for “routine maintenance and daily operation of the
Bridge [sic]…(and) for major maintenance projects that preserve the structural integrity of the
Bridge, as well as improve safety and operating efficiency” (Highway). Since 1930, financing
for the upkeep and repairs of the bridge has come from “corporate, private, and city monies”
Golden Gate
5
(Alcatraz 2). According to the Highway and Transportation Department, the breakdown of the
current operating and capital budget is as follows: 35% Tolls; 34% Grants; 13% Fares; 6% other
sources (advertising); and 12% from toll dollars set aside for capital projects.
Another historically significant aspect of the Golden Gate Bridge is the evolution of its
architectural design. To design a bridge is a complicated venture to begin with: “Bridges, like
humans, have birthdays. They are reckoned from the day they are opened to traffic. But the
conception of a bridge is unnatural; bridging a waterway is an act against Nature herself—an act
that Nature frequently contests and sometimes does not permit” (Brown 3). Strauss’ own ideas
were indeed “contested.” In 1916, Joseph Strauss’ initial plan for the bridge was a combination
of heavy cantilevered sections at either end, and a suspension section in the middle, but San
Franciscans did not embrace the design because it was not aesthetically pleasing, and conflicted
with the beauty of the bay. This forced Strauss to find a way to change his plan for the bridge
(Brown 14). Married architects Irving F. and Gertrude C. Morrow “stepped in” and helped
Strauss re-design the bridge (Alcatraz 1). The Morrows, along with engineer Clifford Paine are
responsible for the stylistically modern bridge accented with Art Deco details (Great Buildings):
…it was chief assistant engineer Clifford Paine and architect Irving Morrow who actually
deserve credit for the design and construction of the bridge that stands today. Morrow
designed the towers with a subtlety of ornamentation and an understanding of height and
perspective. He is also responsible for the offset bays and large curving walkways
around the towers encouraging Bridge pedestrians to pause and enjoy the view. (UC
Berkeley 1)
Finally, in June of 1921, Strauss and his team completed the final official sketches and estimates
for the bridge (Museum 1). After the incorporation of the bridge, pre-construction could begin
Golden Gate
6
and eleven engineering firms submitted design proposals. On August 15, 1929, the engineering
team for the bridge was created and included Chief Engineer Joseph Strauss, and Consulting
Engineers Leon Moisseiff and O.H. Ammann, both of New York, and Professor Charles Derleth
Jr. of the University of California (Museum 3). Another important, if somewhat hidden
influence was Design Engineer Charles Ellis, who worked in Strauss’ Chicago office. However,
Strauss overlooked Ellis’ enormous engineering contribution to the bridge, and many sources on
the bridge mention him only briefly (Vander der Zee 105-107). With the creation of the bridge’s
basic design and the official team, firms were able to submit the first bids for construction in July
1931, and finally on January 2, 1933, after over a decade of proposals, legislation, litigation and
planning, construction of the Golden Gate Bridge began (Museum 4).
In addition to the Golden Gate Bridge being innovative in its architectural design, it is
also significant in its innovative engineering. When completed, the bridge was remarkable in
that it was larger than any suspension bridge before: “It was for many years the longest
suspension bridge in the world, but was superseded by the 1298m long Verrazaon Narrows
Bridge. It also had the world's tallest suspension towers at the time of construction, and held that
record until more recently” (Golden Gate, Wikipedia). It is currently the seventh longest
suspension bridge in the world preceded on the list by the following: 1) Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge
(Japan) 1,990 meters or 6,527 feet – 1991; 2) Great Belt Bridge (Denmark) 1,624 meters or
5,328 feet – 1998; 3) Humber Bridge (England) 1,410 meters or 4,624 feet – 1981; 4) Jangyn
Bridge (China, Yangtse River) 1,385 meters – 1999; 5) Tsing Ma Bridge (Hong Kong) 1,377
meters – 1997; 6)Verrazano Narrows Bridge (USA) 1,298 meters or 4,260 feet – 1964
(Suspension Bridges, Wikipedia). Suspension bridges were an interesting answer to bridge
building: “The aerodynamic instability manifested in suspension bridges in the late 1930s was
Golden Gate
7
absent or insignificant and thus unimportant in early designs of similar structures. However, it
became dominant and thus significant in evolved designs, which were so much larger, lighter,
narrower, or more slender” (Petroski 5). The Golden Gate Bridge is an example of the evolution
of suspension bridges beginning with the opening of the 1595 foot Brooklyn Bridge in 1883
(Petroski 6). With the Golden Gate, suspension bridges became more slender, and lost the
traditional cable stays, the “web-like” cables emanating from the towers of the Brooklyn Bridge
and “guy wires” which anchored or stabilized a bridge from underneath (Petroski 7). Another
aspect of the Golden Gate Bridge’s significance was the innovations in construction safety that
accompanied construction. In the 1930s, bridge builders had an informal formula for the number
of deaths to expect during the construction of a bridge: one-man dead for every $1 million of the
bridge’s cost (Brown 103). The estimate for the cost for the Golden Gate Bridge was $35
million, and Engineer Strauss took many precautions to avoid the predicted 35 deaths despite
detractors’ worries about cost. His precautions included on-site medical offices, sending workers
home if there was any indication they were tired or incapacitated, prescribing special diets to
combat dizziness, workers wearing respirators to combat lead poisoning, special tinted glasses
for workers to avoid issues with sun and fog, and requiring workers to wear a prototype of
modern hard hats. Strauss also hung an unprecedented safety net under the bridge’s entire length
(Brown 104). Overall, 11 people died throughout the construction of the bridge (Brown 113).
Besides the innovative engineering, the Golden Gate Bridge also had original accessories.
The first of these accessories is the lighting. Architect Morrow knew that an equal number of
lights spaced uniformly on the bridge “would cast an artificial light on the elegant lines of the
bridge” (Alcatraz 2). He decided to place more lighting on the lower parts of the bridge than on
the upper, “creating the illusion that the bridge soars upward and becomes one with the clouds
Golden Gate
8
(or fog)” (Alcatraz 2). In 1982, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps replaced the original lowpressure roadway lights. The second interesting accessory is the unconventional paint. The U.S.
Navy, worried that fog would obscure the bridge, proposed painting it black with yellow stripes
to make sure ships in the bay would see the bridge. However, the chosen color was
“International Orange” or orange vermillion, which “was selected for the way it blends with the
natural elements surrounding it” (Alcatraz 2). Finally, the foghorns are a distinctive aspect of the
bridge design (Alcatraz 2). The original horns were two-toned fog condition warnings to ships
and residents. In 1985, replacement parts for the original horns were unavailable, so the bridge’s
foghorns changed to multi-frequency, single-toned horns. Each of the different frequencies
signals a different message. For ships headed into the bay, “steer left of the south pier horn and
right of the mid-span horn,” for ships heading out of the bay-“stay to the right of the mid-span
horn” (Alcatraz 2). Foghorns sound approximately two and a half hours a day. In the month of
March the horns operate less frequently as it is one of the clearest months, but from July through
October, when the fog is at its densest, horns can sound up to five hours a day (Alcatraz 2).
The bridge’s final statistics are truly impressive. The Golden Gate Bridge includes 6,450
feet of suspension bridge, a 4,200-foot main span and 1,125-foot side spans, with a 2,701-foot
viaduct approach; there are two “Steel cellular towers, each 746 feet high, which support two
36.5 inch diameter steel-wire cables” (Ketchum 43). The weight of two towers is 88.8 million
pounds, and the weight of the main span per lineal foot is 21,300 pounds (Brown 231). The
width of the bridge is 90 feet, the live load capacity per lineal foot is 4000 pounds, and the cable
diameter over its wrapping is 36 3/8-inches, with a maximum cable length of 7760 feet (Brown
231). There are 27,572 wires in each cable, and the total amount of wire used in the cables is
80,000 miles. The bridge used 80,000 tons of structural steel and 300,000 cubic yards of
Golden Gate
9
concrete, (Brown 231) and its total clearance is over 200 feet (Alcatraz 1). The bridge’s
existence is contradictory in that it connected San Francisco to suburbs that were not densely
populated. It was therefore not truly necessary, as there was already a ferry service. Instead,
people were willing to sell their own land in order to build the bridge: “What they got was a
bridge that was probably the world’s most beautiful and certainly the world’s best loved. It was
the longest single-span suspension bridge and the first to leap over the entrance of a major world
harbor” (Brown 3). Statistically, the Golden Gate Bridge is a truly significant engineering
structure.
For the most part, the design of the bridge was an attempt to design the impossible, “The
Golden Gate required the tallest towers, the longest, thickest cables, and the largest underwater
foundation piers ever built. The foundation piers had to be sunk in the violent, pounding waters
of the open sea, something that was thought to be impossible” (Alcatraz 1). However, despite its
innovative design and engineering, the Golden Gate Bridge faced opposition from its inception.
Strauss faced severe opposition from his peers: “Strauss will never build his bridge, no one can
bridge the Golden Gate because of insurmountable difficulties which are apparent to all who give
thought to the idea” (McGloin 1). In the November 3, 1930 San Francisco News, reporter
Adolph Uhl put forth seven reasons for voting no on the Bond to fund the Golden Gate Bridge,
saying that it was "not necessary to take a chance" on the expenditure. He charged that in order
to earn more money, the engineers over-estimated costs, and the estimates on the interest rate for
the bond were not “100% correct” and therefore suspect. He also claimed that any “deficits
would fall on taxpayers’ shoulders, and property values could decrease” (UC Berkeley 2). The
Steamship Association also argued against the bond issue, seeing the bridge “as a threat to the
port; artists argued against it as a disfigurement to one of nature's perfect pictures,” and problems
Golden Gate 10
at “City Hall over management of the Hetch Hetchy water system made voters wary of further
projects” (UC Berkeley 2). Groups opposed to the building of the bridge sued, and were
involved in litigation that delayed the incorporation of the bridge until December 1928 (Museum
2). Even after the bridge’s completion, rumors circulated that kept people from using the bridge
including rumors that there were structural issues with the bridge and that it would be unable to
hold even a few hundred men. Another rumor was that a violin player playing a specific note
that would cause the entire bridge to fall, and that it had an extreme vulnerability to earthquakes.
With tensions rising throughout the world, there were also rumors that a strategically placed
bomb could actually destroy the entire bridge (Brown 135). Bridge traffic and revenues also
suffered from competition, specifically a drop in ferry prices that kept traffic off the bridge
(Brown 135). Despite the opposition, there was also a great deal of support for the Golden Gate
Bridge. Anne Laurie wrote in the San Francisco Examiner, October 29, 1924, “A bridge across
the Golden Gate will be the exclamation point that calls attention to the beauty of the scene…A
thing of beauty, ethereal, graceful, a rainbow solidified and changed into a graceful arch of steel”
(UC Berkeley 2). Moreover, proponents of the bridge used the bridge itself as their main
argument and portrayed the shipping and ferry interests as the “Old Guard trying to halt
progress” (UC Berkeley 1). In 1937 when the bridge was completed, Strauss addressed the
almost constant criticism and “claimed that it had taken him two decades to convince people the
bridge was feasible and only four years to actually build it” (UC Berkeley 2).
Throughout its existence, the bridge has gone through significant changes, yet it has
maintained its structural integrity. From 1954 to 1955 the Lower Lateral System was added, and
the suspender cables were replaced from November 1972 until May 1976 (International). From
1981 to 1982, the bridge had a seismic retrofit, and from November 1983 to August 1985, the
Golden Gate 11
bridge underwent a roadway deck and sidewalk replacement (International 1). Most
significantly, in July 2000 the bridge went through another seismic retrofit. In 1991, the
Highway and Transportation District wanted to add a rail transit deck to the bridge, and so the
district hired T. Y. Lin International to do a structural analysis assessment (Ketchum 43). The
team began with a wind evaluation. The Golden Gate Bridge had already been through major
windstorms, the worst in 1951, which caused an oscillation (movement) of 30 inches in the main
span (Ketchum 43, 45). The two most important measurements that need to be assessed
regarding wind are “flutter” or “catastrophic instability caused by a high steady wind” (Ketchum
45) which destroyed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and “buffeting” or “shaking by gusts”
(Ketchum 45). The team found that flutter was not an issue for the bridge, and buffeting would
not be catastrophic, but could affect people crossing the bridge in their cars, as well as cause
fatigue on the bridge. The team discovered that the bridge could support the deck, but the
movement of the trains would bother the transit on the original deck and in the case of strong
winds, the structural integrity would be threatened (Ketchum 43). T.Y. International also did a
seismic evaluation on the bridge. They found that either an earthquake from the Hayward Fault,
which is ten miles to the east, or the San Andreas Fault, which is seven miles to the west, could
affect the bridge (Ketchum 45). However, the risk of the bridge collapsing in a Richter Scale 8
earthquake is low, although there would be severe damage to the bridge (43). The conclusion of
the assessment was positive, “The Golden Gate Bridge is a remarkable structure, and the
analyses demonstrate that it has remarkable reserve strength for carrying additional vertical
loads. Its flexibility contributes to wind and seismic deficiencies, but these can be corrected by
retrofits now under study” (Ketchum 45).
Another major change to the Golden Gate Bridge was the retrofit of July 2000, which
Golden Gate 12
was to keep with the aesthetic of the original design making the changes unnoticeable
(Giacomini 38). This retrofit was not merely making the bridge stronger, but changing certain
elements’ flexibility and adding “energy-absorbing devices” that would allow certain sections to
move independently so that in an earthquake, sections would respond freely to the stress
(Giacomini 38). One of the main issues facing the retrofit was maintaining the “structural
integrity” of the bridge when the workers were assembling and dissembling temporary structures
(e.g. the connectors between the bridge sections) on a daily basis, with the regular daily load still
using the bridge (Giacomini 40). The retrofit was more economical than replacing the bridge in
its entirety, costing an estimated $300 million rather than $1.4 billion (Giacomini 41). The
retrofit also took into account the environmental impact of the bridge, considering issues either
not examined as extensively in the 1930s, or not considered at all. The considerations were wide
in scope: topography, soils, water, air quality, noise, visual resources, biological resources, land
use, recreation, traffic and parking, archaeological resources, and properties of historical
importance (Giacomini 41, 74). Finally, the modernization of the bridge was possible because of
“modern engineering knowledge, methods, and materials” (Giacomini 74), and these changes not
only strengthened Strauss’ creation, but also gave the bridge a viable future. After the retrofit,
the team determined that the bridge would “continue to provide a safe and vital transportation
link for more than 41 million vehicles a year” (Giacomini 74). The retrofit was also significant
no one had attempted a project of this type and on this scale before: “the Golden Gate Bridge
retrofit…serve(d) as a benchmark for other projects around the globe by demonstrating state-ofthe-art design and construction techniques that eclipse past suspension span retrofit
achievements” (Giacomini 74).
Golden Gate 13
Finally, the Golden Gate Bridge is an important structure because of the symbolic
significance the bridge has for its environment and those who encounter it. From its conception,
the bridge was symbolic to its creators, especially because of its grandeur in the face of the
economic hardships of the Great Depression:
The proponents of the bridge…seem to have seized immediately upon its metaphoric
power: this bridge, as designed, was a statement of faith in the future, radiating
confidence amid the bleakest of American economic times. The country, this bridge
declared, was not at the end of things economically any more than it was geographically,
but instead at the beginning of something new, unobstructed by the past, with renewed
aspirations to excellence. (Van der Zee 123)
The bridge is immensely significant to the Bay Area, San Francisco, and the United States. First,
the bridge has become an impressive, cohesive element of its environment:
The Golden Gate Bridge continues to astound and inspire. Some believe its soaring grace
and sublime elegance enhance the beauty of its site as few man-made structures do.
Considered an Art Deco sculpture and a symphony in steel, the bridge has always
inspired artists, poets, writers, and filmmakers. It has also become a symbol for
communication, for the portal to the Pacific—uniting America and Asia—and for San
Francisco, its magical city by the bay. (UC Berkeley 6)
The bridge has also become a symbol of the “golden opportunities” of San Francisco, the West
Coast, the U.S., as well as a symbol of freedom (Brown 3). After World War II, for soldiers
returning from the Pacific Arena, the Golden Gate Bridge represented home, “its tall twin towers
were the first signs of America glimpsed by those returning from battles for America. Men
sensed the span’s soaring freedom and they knew that it was related, somehow, to the freedoms
Golden Gate 14
for which they’d fought-the freedom to imagine, to dream, to dare the impossible, and to build”
(Brown 152). Like the Space Needle in Seattle, the bridge represents the area as no other
landmark can as “the Golden Gate Bridge is an internationally recognized symbol of San
Francisco” (Alcatraz 1). For many San Franciscans, the bridge is a part of their identities:
Residents of the San Francisco Bay area feel this bridge as an entity and have a section
for it. They admire its living grace, and its magnificent setting. They respond to its many
moods—its warm and vibrant glow in the early sun, its seeming play with, or disdain of,
incoming fog, its retiring shadowy form before the sunset, its lovely appearance in its
lights at night. To its familiars it appears as the ‘Keeper of the Golden Gate.’ (McGloin
1)
The bridge also represents economic profit for the Bay Area. It has created revenue for property
owners and multiplied their property values, and San Francisco has never taxed its residents for
the upkeep of the bridge (Brown 224). The bridge has also represented something grand to be
conquered, offering the possibility of notoriety. Many have attempted stunts and “firsts” in
which the Golden Gate Bridge played a significant part: climbing the cables, flying under it in an
airplane, jumping off it, getting married on it, and fishing from it (Brown 191). Unfortunately, in
addition to representing a variety of “firsts,” it has also been a representation of “lasts,” as many
have chosen to end their lives by jumping off the bridge. For some it has become a physical
manifestation of death: “It is, first of all, a bridge, a visible span connecting two points that might
as well be the here and hereafter….Taking the bridge to death is an experience with continuity
and familiarity, a journey rather than the dead stop of a bullet to the brain” (Brown 198). The
Golden Gate Bridge has come to symbolize many things, and it means something special to
every person who encounters it.
Golden Gate 15
In addition to its symbolic significance for its environment, the bridge also has symbolic
meaning for engineers, as it represents man’s ability to create: “Semanticists say that the bridge
is a statement, an exclamation, a declaration of man’s power to improve his environment”
(Brown 224). To Strauss, the bridge was the “culmination of a dream” (Brown 224). The
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has even honored the bridge’s significance by
awarding it the Monuments of the Millennium Award (Monuments 1). ASCE awarded the
bridge on May 30, 2001, only days after the bridge’s 64th birthday on May 27 (Monuments 1).
The award “honors the civil engineering profession's contribution to the quality of life and (the)
well being of people and communities worldwide” (Monuments 1). Denis Mulligan, an ASCE
District Engineer said of the award, “this award honors the visionary men and women who
designed and built this great, innovative bridge" (Monuments 1). ASCE President Robert W.
Bein, P.E. said,
“The new millennium reminds us of the tremendous impact civil engineering has had on
the development of our society and the everyday lives of individuals around the
world….(and) also acknowledges the creative spirit and ingenuity of the civil engineering
profession serving as a symbol of engineering's finest moments in history.” (Monuments
1)
Each structure chosen for the award is an example of “engineering ingenuity to overcome major
design and construction challenges.” President Bein added, “The Golden Gate Bridge is an
outstanding example of engineering ingenuity and dedication to ensuring the public's well
being." ACSE selected the Golden Gate Bridge for a variety of reasons. First, “like the great
civil engineering works of previous centuries, it uplifts the human spirit and creates pride in the
communities it serves.” Secondly, it “uses state-of-the-art design and construction techniques to
Golden Gate 16
preserve the natural environment.” Third, it “makes a significant contribution to regional and
world economies.” Last, and “most importantly, all of these monuments created a positive
change in the way people lived and how they conducted business” (Monuments 1).
The Golden Gate Bridge is a significant structure for many reasons. First, its history
shows the complicated process of creating such a magnificent edifice. Secondly, the architecture
and engineering designs of the bridge were both evolutionary and revolutionary. The
innovations in engineering and construction safety also show the importance of the bridge in that
it afforded the opportunity for the engineering field to progress. The bridge is also significant
because it has maintained its integrity despite undergoing many changes. Finally, the Golden
Gate Bridge is important because it has become a symbol for everyone who encounters it:
For the purist, it is a changing bridge. The approaches have grown wider. It has been
stiffened. Its maintenance scaffolds have been made safer. Its tolls have lowered. It
might someday even be free….For the romanticist, it is changeless. Its silhouette remains
graceful. Its proportions remain majestic. Its color remains vibrant and alive. Its long
center span remains unbelievable. Its attractions remain overpowering….It remains a
splendid bridge. (Brown 225)
The Golden Gate Bridge is the culmination and realization of many dreams. Most importantly, it
proves that those who thought it was “beyond the limits of human endeavor,” were
overwhelmingly wrong.
Golden Gate 17
Works Cited
Alcatraz Cam. “Golden Gate Bridge History and Facts.” MapWest Inc. 2003. 12 July 2003
<http://www.alcatrazcam.com/cityinfo/Golden_gate_bridge.html>.
Brown, Allen. Golden Gate, biography of a bridge. Garden City: Doubleday, 1965.
Giacomini, Mervin C. and John E. Woelfel. “Golden Gate Update.” Civil Engineering
Magazine, 70.11 (Nov. 2000) : 36-41, 74.
“Golden Gate Bridge.” Wikipedia Encyclopedia. 22 June 2003. 14 July 2003
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge>.
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. “Welcome to Golden Gate Bridge.”
Mendocino Community Network 2002. 30 June 2003 <http://www.
goldengatebridge.org>.
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. “Monuments of the Millennium
Award Golden Gate Bridge.” Mendocino Community Network 2002. 30 June 2003
<http://www.goldengate.org/news/bridge/archives/monuments millennium.html>.
Great Buildings Online. “Golden Gate Bridge.” Artifice Inc. 1994. 9 July 2003.
<http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Golden_Gate_Bridge.html>.
International Database and Gallery of Structures. “Golden Gate Bridge.” Structurae 1998. 30
June 2003 <http://www.structurae.de/en/structures /data/str00029.php>.
Ketchum, Mark A. and Al Heldermon. “Probing the Golden Gate.” Civil Engineering Magazine,
61.6 (June 1991): 43-45.
McGloin, S.J., John Bernard. “Symphonies in Steel: Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate.” San
Francisco, the Story of a City. 1978. 7 July 2003 <http://www.sfmuseum.
org/hist9/mcgloin.html>.
Golden Gate 18
Museum of the City of San Francisco. “The story behind the construction of the span.” Official
Program; Golden Gate Bridge Fiesta 1937. 30 June 2003
<http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist10/ ggbridging.html>.
Nova. “Suspension bridges.” 2000. 7 July 2003 < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bridge
/meetsusp.html>.
Petroski, Henry. “Success and failure in engineering.” National Forum 1 Jan. 2001: 10.
Van der Zee, John. The gate: the true story of the design and construction of the Golden Gate
Bridge. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986.
University of California, Berkeley. “Bridging the Bay: Golden Gate.” UC Berkeley. 1999. 30
June 2003 < http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Exhibits/Bridge/gate.html>.
Golden Gate 19
Outline
Thesis: San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge is a significant achievement in engineering. The
extent of the bridge’s significance is evident through an examination of the history of its
construction, its legislation and finance, its innovative engineering and design, its structural
integrity, and the symbolic significance the bridge holds for its environment.
I.
Introduction
a. Quote
b. Background on Suspension Bridges
II.
History
A. Commission
1. “Commanded” by “Norton I, Emperor of the United States.”
2. San Francisco City Engineer M.M. O’Shaughnessy
3. Engineer Joseph Strauss
4. Initial Estimate of cost and span
B. Legislation
1. State Assemblyman Frank Coombs’ bill
2. Mayor Rolph January 13, 1923 meeting
3. 1924 application to War Department and approval
4. Strauss’ two applications to the Secretary of War.
C. Finance of bridge past and present
1. Levy tax and bond
2. Tolls
3. Current finances
III.
Architectural Design
a. Strauss’ 1916 initial design
b. Involvement of Irving and Gertrude Morrow and Clifford Paine
c. June 1921, final sketches and estimates
d. Proposals submitted
e. August 15, 1929, engineering team created
f. Charles Ellis’ role
g. July 1931, construction bids
h. January 2, 1933 construction began.
IV.
Innovations in Engineering
a. Longest suspension bridge at the time
b. Now the seventh longest preceded by:
1. Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge (Japan) 1,990 meters or 6,527 feet – 1991
2. Great Belt Bridge (Denmark) 1,624 meters or 5,328 feet – 1998
3. Humber Bridge (England) 1,410 meters or 4,624 feet – 1981
4. Jangyn Bridge (China, Yangtse River) 1,385 meters - 1999
5. Tsing Ma Bridge (Hong Kong) 1,377 meters - 1997
6. Verrazano Narrows Bridge (USA) 1,298 meters or 4,260 feet - 1964
c. Innovation of suspension bridge
d. Innovations in Construction Safety
1. “Death Formula”
2. Strauss took many precautions
Golden Gate 20
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
e. Innovative Accessories
1. Lighting
2. Paint
3. Fog Horns
f. Final Statistics
Opposition
a. Opposition from Strauss' peers
b. From reporter Adolph Uhl
c. Lawsuit
d. Steamship Association
e. Rumors
f. Competition
Integrity
a. Changes through 1982
b. 1991 Structural Analysis
c. July 2000 Retrofit
Symbolism
a. For its creators
b. For its environment
c. For the United States
d. For San Francisco
1. Identity
2. Economy
3. Stunts/”Firsts”
4. Suicides
5. To Modern Engineering/ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)
Conclusion: “For the purist, it is a changing bridge. The approaches have grown
wider. It has been stiffened. Its maintenance scaffolds have been made safer. Its
tolls have lowered. It might someday even be free….For the romanticist, it is
changeless. Its silhouette remains graceful. Its proportions remain majestic. Its color
remains vibrant and alive. Its long center span remains unbelievable. Its attractions
remain overpowering….It remains a splendid bridge. (Brown 225)