[kaycebasques]

If I imagine it as an ugly bridge then I can see your points well. But I really think you have to figure the beauty of it into the equation. It draws unbelievable tourism to the city. My wife (a Brazilian) has a tattoo of it - that's how strong the allure is for some people (although of course there are people all around the world who have a tattoo of whatever architectural icon that drew them to their adopted city). $35M to make your city an international icon is a bargain. Of course the creators probably had no idea it would have that kind of impact but my only point is that when talking about the GGB the beauty is an inextricable part of the equation.

[basedgod]

it's a bargain for the city but still a blight on it's residents that does not serve them in any way

it makes the lives of a few rich people better as they can commute to their yachts better, but that's about it

sf would have been completely fine as a city without this bridge

[bombcar]

If it's only used by a few rich people, I'd expect the traffic on it is very light.

[kaycebasques]

Counterpoint though is the fact that you see heavy traffic on it is testament to its role in encouraging car culture

[Lammy]

People need to live somewhere, and we sure haven't built up enough to allow most people to live within the city itself. Is "encouraging car culture" the new NIMBY angle? It's just the flip-side of the housing crisis. I'd live closer to work too if I could afford Woodside or whatever.

[boulos]

Do you feel that reaching Point Reyes and other areas in the north does not "serve them in any way"? Bridges have existed for millennia because they're useful to both sides of the bridge.

[basedgod]

this garbage bridge does not serve it's residents above replacement.

ferries already existed, as well as other ways to get to the areas north of the city.

the main issue with this bridge is that it is the enemy of better, and a bridge/tunnel with forward thinking infrastructure and transit can now never be built, now that we have this antiquated garbage bridge built, merely for the myth of car ownership

the civil planning doesn't even extend to the rest of the city, it's merely plopped down onto an arbitrary section of it.

it would have been better to not have been built at all. a more ugly bridge built later on wouldn't have had the nimbys we have today, and could have been torn down and retrofitted without it being sacrilegious

[djbusby]

It reads like you don't understand the needs of SF back when that bridge was built. It could also carry rail, but that portion was not completed - because, and here's the shocker, a city's needs change over time. The Wikipedia page about this bridge covers a lot of these details.

[Melatonic]

Ah yes - a bridge from the top of a peninsula to the other side. Surely nowhere else would people think to make one of those. Just have everyone take the long way around where they will then need to cross TWO bridges if they want to travel north!

[milesskorpen]

Entirely 100% disagree. Easy access to Marin and all areas north make San Francisco a much better city.

[kaycebasques]

Tourism is a substantial part of San Francisco's economy. It employs a lot of San Francisco residents.