Design credit for Golden Gate Bridge reassigned
The engineer was Charles Ellis, a University of Illinois professor of engineering. He did much of the technical and theoretical work that built the bridge but until Thursday got none of the credit.
The bridge district always considered chief engineer Joseph Strauss a visionary and tireless promoter as the father of the Golden Gate Bridge, which is generally considered one of the greatest engineering feats of the 20th century.
Though Ellis did much of the design work and thousands of mathematical calculations necessary to build the bridge and developed the specifications and contract forms, Strauss fired him before construction began. The reasons remain unclear. Strauss went on to claim credit for the bridge, and Ellis remained a college professor.
After Strauss died in 1938, the district erected a statue of him at the San Francisco end of the bridge. Thursday, it conducted a press conference under the statue to introduce a new book called "The Golden Gate Bridge, Report of the Chief Engineer, Volume II.''
As recently as 1994, the district refused to give Ellis major credit for the bridge. It said Ellis was merely one of Strauss' consultants or assistants.
But the district said new evidence had surfaced, and now "the record clearly demonstrates that he deserves significant credit for the suspension bridge design we see and cherish today.''
comments powered by Disqus
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Two-Thirds of European Men Descend From Three People
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign