RSS
Home
The Golden Gate Bridge: Our most dangerous landmark?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Barrier alternative 1A
courtesy Golden Gate Bridge District
Its soaring beauty and well known orange color defines San Francisco worldwide--the Golden Gate Bridge.
It's also a magnet of sorts for those attempting to end their lives.
The debate about the bridge's safety was raised anew yesterday with the release of a draft environmental impact report (EIR). Five alternatives were identified as possible barrier methods. Four of them involve increasing the height of the handrail (currently four feet) to make it all but impossible to climb over. The fifth alternative is a net system off the bridge designed to catch anyone that jumps.
The barrier designs were developed by Donald MacDonald, an architect who probably knows as much as anyone living about the bridge. He incidentally just published a book on the bridge, Golden Gate Bridge: History and Design of an Icon.
The debate and controversy that has existed for decades will come to a head once again.
That debate pits two opinions against each other: those who feel that the bridge is the ultimate historic landmark and thus can't be touched versus those who feel that the bridge is an inherently dangerous and must be made suicide-proof. There are no easy answers to that debate and both sides of the issue have merit.
I'd offer a counter argument to each side.
To the landmark folks, after looking at the alternatives, none of them make a huge difference in the appearance of the bridge at a macro scale (what the EIR refers to as landscape impacts). Certainly up close, changes to the rail height will be apparent, but in my opinion, the architect has done a pretty good job respecting the aesthetics of the bridge. And the fact is, the bridge has undergone numerous changes during its lifetime, the latest being the seismic upgrade to both the San Francisco and Marin approaches.
To the suicide prevention folks, I would ask how many suicides will a barrier actually prevent? The bridge currently has what are called non-physical suicide prevention strategies which include cameras and trained suicide prevention patrols. According to some reports, those strategies have cut down the number of suicides by about two thirds. An even larger question is what is the percentage of bridge suicides to all Bay Area suicides? Is this the most cost-effective way to reduce suicides? Current estimates put the cost of the barriers in the $40 to $50 million range.
I can see both sides. The Golden Gate Bridge is an important icon and tourist draw for San Francisco. And suicides devastate families of victims, not to mention the tragedy of an unnecessary death.
The draft EIR is open to public comment before it becomes final. As is often the case, once final, the EIR will likely sit on the shelf.
Did I mention that no one has the money to construct any of these alternatives?
Related Articles:
Comments
