Advertisement

Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 167–189 | Cite as

How the Gateway Arch Got its Shape

  • Robert Osserman
Research

Abstract

Robert Osserman examines Eero Saarinen’s Gateway Arch in St. Louis in order to shed light on what its exact shape is, why it is that shape, and whether the various decisions made during its design were based on aesthetic or structural considerations. Research included discussions with engineers and architects who worked with Saarinen on the project. The paper concludes by noting some questions that are still unanswered.

Keywords

Eero Saarinen Gateway Arch catenary parabola weighted catenary Robert Hooke Galileo Galilei history of mechanics 

Bibliography

  1. Benvenuto Edoardo (1991) An Introduction to the History of Structural Mechanics. Part II: Vaulted Structures and Elastic Systems. Springer-Verlag, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Billington David (1985) The Tower and the Bridge. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Block Philippe, Matt Dejong, John Ochsendorf (2006) As Hangs the Flexible Line: Equilibrium of Masonry Arches. Nexus Network Journal/8 2: 13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bukowski John (2008) Christiaan Huygens and the Problem of the Hanging Chain. College Mathematics Journal/39 1: 2–11MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Coir, Mark. 2006. The Cranbrook Factor. Pp. 29-43 in Eero Saarinen, Shaping the Future. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Crosbie, Michael J. 1983. Is It a Catenary? New questions about the shape of Saarinen’s St. Louis Arch. AIA Journal (June 1983): 78-79.Google Scholar
  7. Eero saarinen: shaping the future. 2006. Eeva-Liisa Pelkonen and Donald Albrecht, eds. New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Figueiredo, Vera L.X., Margarida P. Mello, Sandra A. SANTOS. 2005. Cálculo com Aplicações: Atividades Computacionais e Projetos. Coleção IMECC, Textos Didáticos.Google Scholar
  9. Galilei Galileo (1974) Two New Sciences. Stillman Drake, trans. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartzog , George B. Jr. (1988) Battling for the National Parks. Kingston (Rhode Island), Moyer BellGoogle Scholar
  11. Heyman Jacques (1999) The Science of Structural Engineering. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Heyman Jacques (1982) The Masonry Arch. Ellis Horward Limited, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  13. Huerta Santiago (2006) Galileo was Wrong! The Geometrical Design of Masonry Arches. Nexus Network Journal/8 2: 25–51CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Johns Jasper (2005) Catenary. Steidel Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. King Ross (2000) Brunelleschi’s Dome: How a Renaissance Genius Reinvented Architecture. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  16. Merkel Jayne (2005) Eero Saarinen. Phaidon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Osserman Robert (2010) Mathematics of the Gateway Arch. Notices of the American Mathematical Society/57 2: 220–229MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Thayer William V. 1984. The St. Louis Arch Problem. Module 638 of UMAP: Modules in Undergraduate Mathematics and its Applications.Google Scholar
  19. Valéry, Paul. 1960. Eupalinos ou l’architecte. In Oeuvres, Vol. 2, Paris: Bibliotèque de la Pléiade/Éditions Gallimard. Google Scholar
  20. The Visual Dictionary of Architecture. 2008. Lausanne: Ava Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Wolfe Uta, Maloney Laurence T., Mimi TAM. (2005) Distortion of perceived length in the frontoparallel plane: Tests of perspective theories. Perception and Psychophysics 67(6): 967–979Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematical Sciences Research InstituteBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations