https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/Golden-Gate-Bridge-construction-and-indignation-3554707.php Skip to main content SFGATE Homepage Currently Reading Golden Gate Bridge construction - and indignation * Newsletters * Sign In [ ] * Home + About SFGATE + Contact SFGATE + Newsletters + Ethics Policy + Advertise With Us + Privacy Notice / Notice At Collection + Terms of Use + Ad Choices + Classifieds + Do Not Sell My Personal Info * News + Bay Area + Nation + World + Crime + Unsolved + Weather + Education + Jobs + Health + Sponsored Content * Local + SF History + Businesses + Places + Essays + Sponsored Content * Politics * Sports + 49ers + Giants + A's + Warriors + Soccer + Sharks + TV Listings + College + Preps * culture + Movies + Music + Streaming + Characters + Tech & Social Media + Things To Do + Sponsored: SF Culture + Marketplace + Cannabis + Senior Living * Food + Drink + Restaurants + Reservations * Travel + Tahoe + California Parks + Disneyland + Hawaii + Napa + SF Insider: Things to do + Wine Country + Monterey-Carmel * Real Estate + New Homes + (Virtual) Open Homes + Luxury + Rentals + Mortgage Rates + Place a Real Estate Ad + Neighborhood Guides + Home & Garden * Obits + Obituaries + Place an Obituary * Coupons * Buy Area MOST POPULAR * Hundreds of sea birds and marine mammals swarm a group of five Humpback whales as they feed in the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of San Francisco, Calif. Wednesday, September 25, 2019. Fish are reportedly raining from the sky across San Francisco * FILE: The Patriot roller coaster takes riders through a 360-degree loop at California's Great America amusement park in Santa Clara on March 31, 2017. Beloved Bay Area theme park to close permanently in near future * The Rices Fire in Northern California's Nevada County was moving fast on Tuesday afternoon. 'It's ripping': Dangerous wildfire in NorCal triggers evacuations * A view of homes in San Francisco. Recent indicators suggest that the region's typically red hot real estate market is set to soon cool off. Why the plummeting housing market could spell disaster for renter * DEDHAM, MA - NOVEMBER 8: A chicken sandwich with waffle fries is pictured at the Chick-Fil-A restaurant in Dedham, MA on Nov. 8, 2017. (Photo by David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images) Controversial fast-food chain slated to open in Bay Area city * A sign in a business window along Chestnut Street reminds customers to wear face masks while indoor their store in San Francisco, Calif. on Jan. 4, 2022. Do mask mandates work? Bay Area data from June says no. * Gemini Horoscope for Wednesday, 6/29/22 by Christopher Renstrom * Wing Fat Restaurant, located at 500 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, is one of the businesses planned for demolition to make way for a new mixed-use development. 64-year-old Bay Area Chinese restaurant approved for demolition * Sitting on the grill and ready to go the famous French Burger at Andre's Drive-In in Bakersfield is the 75-year-old fast food icon's flagship meal. The Central Calif. drive-in that inspired this McDonald's fave * Gemini Horoscope for Tuesday, 6/28/22 by Christopher Renstrom * The wall of cans at Fort Point's Ferry Building location. Popular SF brewery shuts down another location * FILE - In this March 9, 2010, file photo a tanker truck passes the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond, Calif. A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, May 26 against major oil companies in lawsuits brought by California cities and counties seeking damages for the impact of climate change. A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said state courts are the proper forum for the lawsuits alleging that Big Oil promoted petroleum as environmentally responsible when producers knew it was causing damage. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File) Bay Area company selling HQ, encouraging workers to move to Texas News // Place Golden Gate Bridge construction - and indignation BRIDGE'S 75TH ANNIVERSARY John King May 13, 2012 Facebook Twitter Email This is a carousel. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigate 29 [1200x0]1of29 Show MoreShow Less [1200x0]2of29 Show MoreShow Less 3of29 4of29Though the bond measure to bill the Golden Gate Bridge was approved by a large majority, the proposal was attacked during the campaign by a range of interest groups.Courtesy California Historical S/The ChronicleShow MoreShow Less 5of29Competing advertisements for competing radio shows with regards to the merits of the 1930 bond election to pay for a Golden Gate bridge.Courtesy California Historical S/SEE INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 6of29 7of29Though the bond measure to bill the Golden Gate Bridge was approved by a large majority, the proposal was attacked during the campaign by a range of opponents.Courtesy California Historical S/SEE INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 8of29The 1930 election battle over the bond measure to build the Golden Gate Bridge was fought on many fronts.Courtesy California Historical S/SEE INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 9of29 10of29Though the bond measure to bill the Golden Gate Bridge was approved by a large majority, the proposal was attacked during the campaign by a range of interest groups.See Instructions/SEE INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 11of29Though the bond measure to bill the Golden Gate Bridge was approved by a large majority, the proposal was attacked during the campaign by a range of interest groups. California Historical Society/The ChronicleShow MoreShow Less 12of29 13of29Though the bond measure to bill the Golden Gate Bridge was approved by a large majority, the proposal was attacked during the campaign by a range of interest groups.Courtesy California Historical S/SEE INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 14of29Though the bond measure to bill the Golden Gate Bridge was approved by a large majority, the proposal was attacked during the campaign by a range of interest groups.Courtesy California Historical S/SEE INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 15of29 16of29As the 1930 election neared, voters received information from both sides regarding the bond measure to build the Golden Gate Bridge.Courtesy California Historical S/SEE INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 17of29The special election on Nov. 4, 1930 to allow bonds to be sold to build the Golden Gate Bridge was bitterly fought. One weapon: blunt editorial cartoons that exalted the bridge as progress and attacked opponents as old fogeys or nefarious trusts.Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and /SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 18of29 19of29The special election on Nov. 4, 1930 to allow bonds to be sold to build the Golden Gate Bridge was bitterly fought. One weapon: blunt editorial cartoons that exalted the bridge as progress and attacked opponents as old fogeys or nefarious trusts. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and/SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 20of29 The special election on Nov. 4, 1930 to allow bonds to be sold to build the Golden Gate Bridge was bitterly fought. One weapon: blunt editorial cartoons that exalted the bridge as progress and attacked opponents as old fogeys or nefarious trusts.Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and /SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 21of29 22of29The special election on Nov. 4, 1930 to allow bonds to be sold to build the Golden Gate Bridge was bitterly fought. One weapon: blunt editorial cartoons that exalted the bridge as progress and attacked opponents as old fogies or nefarious trusts.Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and /SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 23of 29The special election on Nov. 4, 1930 to allow bonds to be sold to build the Golden Gate Bridge was bitterly fought. One weapon: blunt editorial cartoons that exalted the bridge as progress and attacked opponents as old fogies or nefarious trusts.Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and /SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 24of29 25of29Ansel Adams in 1948.Houghton Mifflin Co./Chronicle File Show MoreShow Less 26of29The newspapers that supported the bond measure to build the Golden Gate Bridge has no shyness about making their opinions known to voters.Courtesy California Historical S/SEE INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 27of29 28of29The special election on Nov. 4, 1930 to allow bonds to be sold to build the Golden Gate Bridge was bitterly fought. One weapon: blunt editorial cartoons that exalted the bridge as progress and attacked opponents as old fogeys or nefarious trusts.Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and /SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONSShow MoreShow Less 29of29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * It is difficult to overstate the symbolic power of the Golden Gate Bridge and its hold on the civic imagination. Or the vehemence with which opponents tried to keep it from ever being built. Critics depicted the bridge as financially unsound, legally dubious, an aesthetic blight and an engineering hazard in the decade before the start of construction in 1933. The battle was most fierce in the fall of 1930, when voters in six counties were asked to allow $35 million in bond sales for construction. We know the outcome: one of the few structures in California that genuinely deserves to be called an icon. But, on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the span's completion, a look back at the fight shows how little has changed in terms of the attacks that are aimed at major alterations to the landscape - and the difficulty that one generation has in predicting how future generations might choose to live and the values they might hold. 'Go slow' The skepticism toward a bridge now taken for granted was on full display on Oct. 16, 1930, when the influential Commonwealth Club gathered to hear a debate on the merits of the bond measure. The proponents on hand included Joseph Strauss, the chief engineer who wanted to span the entrance to one of the world's great harbors with a 4,200-foot roadway suspended from two 746-foot towers, 220 feet above water. But the focus was on the findings of the club's committees on harbor development and state highways, which provided ample ammunition for voters seeking reasons to vote no. Among the arguments: -- Any bridge with a clearance of less than 250 feet could blockade the harbor as the size and height of international vessels increased. -- The south tower's siting "shows definite weakness," warned an engineer: "more thorough drilling with detailed mapping on more sections must be done." -- "Have we any assurance that $35 million is the final figure?" asked statistician H.P. Melnikow. He also questioned the motives of Strauss and his consulting engineers since "they are (financially) interested in this matter and are trying to sell it to us." -- Traffic projections were "over-optimistic," declared another subcommittee, and "we would have liked to have seen the district's plans and estimates reviewed by an entirely disinterested body of technical experts before the people were asked to vote." No formal position was taken by the Commonwealth Club, founded in 1903 as "an open forum for the discussion of disputed questions." But the two committees agreed the bond measure should be rejected "at this time." In the words of one researcher, "San Francisco should go slow, and be sure that any project will not jeopardize San Francisco's credit for more vital essential things." Illustrious foes The committee findings soon became fodder for a newspaper advertisement that began "MR. TAXPAYER: This Ad is published to save you money - READ IT." After all, they echoed what opponents had been saying all along: Things were moving too fast. There were too many unanswered questions. The numbers couldn't be trusted. The ad was one of many placed by the Taxpayers' Committee Against Golden Gate Bridge Bonds. With a membership list that included future Mayor Roger Lapham and City Engineer M.M. O'Shaughnessy, this was no mere collection of gadflies. Such opponents insisted they weren't against the idea of a bridge, simply the reality of this one. "I am in favor of a bridge across the Golden Gate if it can be physically and feasibly built," O'Shaughnessy declared in one ad. His statement then cautioned that toll bridges "too numerous to mention" didn't generate the traffic necessary to pay the costs of needed maintenance. And when newspapers supporting the bond ridiculed naysayers for "old fogeyism" or worse - one editorial cartoon portrayed shipowners, ferry companies and the Taxpayers' Committee as "the dead hand of greed" - the response was pained outrage. "Can it not be realized that the shipping interests see beyond the immediate future?" asked an alliance of 56 steamship companies in an election day ad. "That our only concern is apprehension over the throttling effect this huge artificial barrier at the harbor entrance would have upon the future trade and commerce of this great seaport?" Variations of all these criticisms had been heard since the War Department in 1924 approved the concept of a spanned Golden Gate. Put to the public vote, however, the bond measure passed 145,057 to 46,954. From bridge to BART What is striking in retrospect isn't how wrong the arguments turned out to be - the $35 million indeed covered the cost of construction, for instance - but how familiar they still sound: We need more details, the details we do have can't be trusted, and there are better alternatives. Look no further than the ongoing campaign against California's high-speed rail system. Before voters approved bonds to help fund the effort in 2008, opponents depicted it in ballot arguments as a "boondoggle" that would benefit "out-of-state special interests." Since then they've used the environmental review process and other venues to challenge the financing, ridership projections and route of the still-evolving plan. There were similar objections to the Bay Area Rapid Transit system before its approval in 1962 by 61 percent of the voters in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Nine years later, as opening day approached, critics were more virulent than ever. Top Picks In Shopping * Shopping Target's 'Deal Days' sales are directly battling Prime Day * Shopping There's a 'Schitt's Creek' expansion pack for What Do You... * Shopping LEGO is reissuing a classic set worth $2,500 online for... * Shopping Do you love pink? Well this Texas Hill Country rental is... "BART will be especially effective in destroying neighborhoods," warned the weekly Bay Guardian, which also called the system "the ultimate money drain." But wait, there's more: "It's designed to handle peak-hour commuter traffic, which occurs only three hours per day. ... The other 8,160 hours per year much of its equipment will lie idle and unproductive." One difference in recent decades is the rise of environmental concerns. The only hint of such issues in 1930 involved aesthetics, as when novelist Gertrude Atherton and sculptor Haig Patigian were among 14 luminaries who put their name to an ad that began "The Golden Gate is One of Nature's Perfect Pictures - Let's Not Disfigure It." More common was the tone of the election day editorial in the San Francisco Call-Bulletin. It rhapsodized that passage of the measure would show the world "we are breaking down our walls, we are building a mightier city than you have ever seen ... the happiest, bravest and most prosperous city in the world." Such rhetoric would have no traction now; a legacy of the 1960s is that people who fight large-scale change aren't caricatured as old fogies. The presumption is that they're on the side of the angels, battling gentrification or ecological harm or other threats to the common good. Attitudinal change If there's a moral to the story of the birth of the Golden Gate Bridge, it's that there are times when change within a city, region or state comes at an exponential scale. On such occasions, the cultural status quo is threatened. When nature lovers fretted that the gloried Golden Gate would be marred by an immense weave of concrete and steel, they couldn't imagine that each would exalt the other - just as opponents of the Transamerica Pyramid couldn't imagine the 853-foot tower would become a popular symbol of the city almost as soon as it opened in 1972. Similarly, critics who disdained BART as nothing more than a corporate tool had no conception that today it would be used heavily at all hours. Increasingly, its stations are the centerpiece of "transit villages" being planned or built through the East Bay. This doesn't mean that skeptics of big plans are small-minded. Some large projects should not be built. But the what-ifs and worst-case scenarios can blind us to the fact that projects of a certain scale often reshape the landscape in ways we can't imagine. And sometimes, the landscape is the better as a result. John King will discuss the Golden Gate Bridge and its cultural reach at 6 p.m. May 25 at the California Historical Society, 678 Mission St., San Francisco. More information on the free event is at bit.ly/ K8ve0B. Strong critics "In the interest of your own uniqueness, dear San Francisco, do not bridge the Golden Gate. Leave that kind of gesture to Los Angeles - which, if it had a Golden Gate, would most certainly bridge it, and sink oil wells into bay and ocean on either side of the bridge." - "San Francisco Revisited," by Katharine Fullerton Gerould, Harper's Magazine, 1924 "While engineering experience indicates the possibility of building bridges of great length, it must be recognized that a single span of 4200 feet is a great advance over such bridges as have proven their safety." - Advertisement against the bond measure signed by 13 engineers, 1930 "The present plan for a bridge across the Golden Gate is a menace to our harbor that should be opposed by everyone who has the interests of San Francisco and its commerce at heart." - Shipowners Association of the Pacific and the Pacific American Steamship Association, 1930 "I do not believe it probable that the Golden Gate Bridge will procure the majority of traffic (compared to ferries) that is now going or will ever go between San Francisco and Marin County." - Arthur Bird, Commonwealth Club, 1930 "Did you know that the chief engineer of the district, who has been so active in promoting the project, has a contract calling for a basic fee of $1,080,000 if the bridge is built?" - Taxpayers' Committee Against Golden Gate Bridge Bonds, 1930 "I remember thousands of people fought the Golden Gate Bridge. My mother used to think it was 'just terrible, ruining the Gate.' Well, the bridge is up. I personally don't think it was so bad. I think it's a very majestic structure." - Ansel Adams, from a 1972 interview conducted by the Regional Oral History Office, UC Berkeley John King is The San Francisco Chronicle's urban design critic. jking@sfchronicle.com Top Picks In Shopping * Shopping Target's 'Deal Days' sales are directly battling Prime Day * Shopping There's a 'Schitt's Creek' expansion pack for What Do You... * Shopping LEGO is reissuing a classic set worth $2,500 online for... * Shopping Do you love pink? Well this Texas Hill Country rental is... Photo of John King Written By John King Reach John on John King is The San Francisco Chronicle's urban design critic, taking stock of everything from Salesforce Tower to sea level rise and how the pandemic is redefining public space. A two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist and author of two books on San Francisco architecture, King joined The Chronicle in 1992 and covered City Hall before creating his current post. He is an honorary member of the American Society of Landscape Architects. SFGATE Homepage - Site Logo * * * Return to Top * About + Our Company + Privacy Notice / Notice at Collection + Your California Privacy Rights + Interest Based Ads + Terms of Use + Advertising + Careers * Contact + Customer Service + Newsroom Contacts + Place an Ad / Classifieds CCPA + Do Not Sell My Personal Information * Quick Links + Cars + Jobs + Recruitment + Home Services * + Weather + Obituaries + SF Marketplace Classifieds + Market Client Articles + Public Notices HEARST newspapers logo (c)2022 Hearst