stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge (Pattullo Bridge Replacement) | U/C

[officedweller]

Since New Westminster is against inflows - how about the 'Surrey Access' Bridge?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Since New Westminster is against inflows - how about the 'Surrey Access' Bridge?

I was thinking “The Surrey Connector” or “Holy Shit, About Fucking Time” bridge.

I am usually hesitant about name changes but in this situation since it is okay seeing how it is a new structure replacing the existing one.

That said it better be a name people can pronounce and spelt with the English alphabet, if not it will simply become known as “The former Pattullo Bridge” or “The Pattullo Replacement” by locals.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Since New Westminster is against inflows - how about the 'Surrey Access' Bridge?

Or the "Fill New Westminster Residential Streets With Traffic Bridge?"

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This situation is even more of a non-issue because I'm pretty sure 99.9% of Lower Mainlanders have no idea who Patullo is anyways.

Your other points have merit, and I'm not arguing for retaining "Patullo". However, with respect to history, a general lack of knowledge isn't necessarily the best rationale for removing references, but instead perhaps for reinforcing them.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Since New Westminster is against inflows - how about the 'Surrey Access' Bridge?

This reminds me of the contest that was once run to come up with a motto for Vancouver - something like "The Big Apple" or "The Windy City". My favourite entry was: "Vancouver - Gateway to Surrey".

[s211]

The Bridge Formerly Known as Pattullo?

[CivicBlues]

The Frontline Workers Memorial Bridge

[Metro-One]

Surprised no one has said “Bridgy McBridgeface” yet.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Surprised no one has said “Bridgy McBridgeface” yet.

We were all thinking it but didn’t want to be that one who actually said it.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

An example? In your imagination? According to your feelings?

I think most people roll with the punches, learn, and adapt, frankly.

History does not favour the neanderthal.

This situation is even more of a non-issue because I'm pretty sure 99.9% of Lower Mainlanders have no idea who Patullo is anyways.

I think being forgotten is a shame and the lack of knowledge of any local history is one of the glaring shortcomings with British Columbians, and yet, for some reason that is celebrated and encouraged. "BC History is boring" is a comment I hear far too often.

"I don't know who that is" isn't the reason to change the name of something.

I even think that's just brushing aside the complaints and concerns of people bringing forward the name change as a resounding "I don't give a fuck".

Context is everything. Our province has a staggering history of mistreatment of non-whites (and even non-brits). We need to come to terms with that, and figure out how to deal with it, and this attitude of "who? whatever!" is not how we go about reconciliation.

At the same time, because of the systemic nature of the problem, almost every historical figure has what we would view as a problematic past. Do we just rename everything and ignore the positive contributions? If 50 years from now eating meat is no longer acceptable in society, are most of us cancelled because there are pictures of us enjoying hamburgers?

Pattullo was the 22nd premier of BC from 1933-1941.

During the Great Depression he expanded the role of government. He pretty much implemented Roosevelt's "New Deal" in British Columbia, mandating minimum wages, working hours, and establishing the BC Utilities Commission. All things I think most of us can be grateful for today.

He was one of the backers of having the federal government borrow money on behalf of the province because the feds could guarantee the repayment and get lower interest rates, and used such money to build the Pattullo bridge, employing hundreds during one of the provinces greatest economic hardships. FYI: Unemployment went from 2.6% in 1929 to 26% in 1932.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think being forgotten is a shame and the lack of knowledge of any local history is one of the glaring shortcomings with British Columbians, and yet, for some reason that is celebrated and encouraged. "BC History is boring" is a comment I hear far too often.

"I don't know who that is" isn't the reason to change the name of something.

I even think that's just brushing aside the complaints and concerns of people bringing forward the name change as a resounding "I don't give a fuck".

Context is everything. Our province has a staggering history of mistreatment of non-whites (and even non-brits). We need to come to terms with that, and figure out how to deal with it, and this attitude of "who? whatever!" is not how we go about reconciliation.

At the same time, because of the systemic nature of the problem, almost every historical figure has what we would view as a problematic past. Do we just rename everything and ignore the positive contributions? If 50 years from now eating meat is no longer acceptable in society, are most of us cancelled because there are pictures of us enjoying hamburgers?

Pattullo was the 22nd premier of BC from 1933-1941.

During the Great Depression he expanded the role of government. He pretty much implemented Roosevelt's "New Deal" in British Columbia, mandating minimum wages, working hours, and establishing the BC Utilities Commission. All things I think most of us can be grateful for today.

He was one of the backers of having the federal government borrow money on behalf of the province because the feds could guarantee the repayment and get lower interest rates, and used such money to build the Pattullo bridge, employing hundreds during one of the provinces greatest economic hardships. FYI: Unemployment went from 2.6% in 1929 to 26% in 1932.

Thank you for the interesting information. Whether to rename a bridge, remove a statue, or otherwise change is a complex question and not one that can simply be reduced to "are they good or bad" in today's context. It is important to look at all aspects of the historical record and remember people in context of both today and yesterday. Would renaming the bridge be more appropriate for the people who make up Canadian society today? Perhaps. Should Pattullo be forgotten, or should he instead remembered in some form for both his strengths and his weaknesses? I would argue the latter.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Thank you for the interesting information. Whether to rename a bridge, remove a statue, or otherwise change is a complex question and not one that can simply be reduced to "are they good or bad" in today's context. It is important to look at all aspects of the historical record and remember people in context of both today and yesterday. Would renaming the bridge be more appropriate for the people who make up Canadian society today? Perhaps. Should Pattullo be forgotten, or should he instead remembered in some form for both his strengths and his weaknesses? I would argue the latter.

IF anything, I would say instead of erasing history (IMO, this is just the modern day version of book burning along with social media censorship), why not build another statue (for example) that represents the other view? That way, people can get a more holistic vision of history. After all if we forget history then we are doomed to repeat it.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Thank you for the interesting information. Whether to rename a bridge, remove a statue, or otherwise change is a complex question and not one that can simply be reduced to "are they good or bad" in today's context. It is important to look at all aspects of the historical record and remember people in context of both today and yesterday. Would renaming the bridge be more appropriate for the people who make up Canadian society today? Perhaps. Should Pattullo be forgotten, or should he instead remembered in some form for both his strengths and his weaknesses? I would argue the latter.

I will say that building a new bridge is a good opportunity to rename it because you are naming the new structure.

However, I can also see complete ignorance of the situation and confusion leading to a sort of backlash that will result in people calling the new structure by it's old name.

I remember in the small town I grew up in, there was an orange bridge across a river that was a key landmark for giving directions. Everyone called it the orange bridge (most highway bridges were painted orange back then, so it was also humorous). Then they painted it blue. Yet, everyone went out of their way to make sure they still called it the orange bridge. You would give directions to tourists and tell them, "go a few miles down this road, across the orange bridge, then take the third left..." And people would just keep driving because they would see a blue bridge.

Without proper consultation and education, the spirit and intent behind renaming the bridge might be lost, and that will confuse and anger people who will then still call it the Pattullo bridge. People of my father's generation (my father included) still call the George Massey tunnel the Deas Island tunnel, and that was renamed after only 8 years. And they call the Iron Workers the Second Narrows. 80 years of calling the crossing Pattullo is going to be hard to overcome.

And people still calling it the Pattullo when it's named something else in honor of reconciliation will just come across as insulting when people are just trying to be humorous out of frustration.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

And they call the Iron Workers the Second Narrows. 80 years of calling the crossing Pattullo is going to be hard to overcome.

Man I still call it the Second Narrows and I came of age in the 90s. I believe it was only renamed in '94. Traffic reports still called it Second Narrows up until the early 00s probably.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It really does depend on appeal and marketing. Nobody says GM Place anymore, but at the same time Telus World of Science hasn't caught on at all.

So long as it's not šxʷƛ̓ənəq Xwtl'e7énḵ or something equally confusing.....

[Mininari]

How about the "Community Benefits Disagreement Bridge"

Nicely captures the spirit of both the NDP's Union-build mandate and the spirit (lack) of cooperation between the Cities of Surrey and New Westminster on transportation issues.

[montyhallgoat]

Houses on New West side (along Wellington St and Dufferin St) are being boarded up and demolished to make way for future EB Columbia on-ramp and multi-use pathway.

Perhaps they need the site for construction staging as the existing McBride Blvd needs to be realigned before the ramp can be constructed.

[bloomtronzero]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

its quite expensive to do. that's why very few do it. i heard for it to be done right, you have to use white concrete with is expensive. i don't see them doing this here. i doubt they'll do any colouring of anything. or lighting. that's just unnecessary costs.

It's kind of a shame that the price tag on such things basically prevents it from happening. For a structure that will define the area and form a cultural reference point for people here, I think it should be fair to spend a little to make it *nice*. I mean the Lion's Gate and Burrard street bridges are gorgeous, to the point where the long term enjoyment of their aesthetics could be considered priceless. I'd like to see us put just a little more effort when building such important things.

But, it'd be such a political hot potato it'd never happen. People huff and puff anytime Translink pops a so much as a painting in SkyTrain stations.

[bloomtronzero]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

Some bridges that have been replaced on the same alignment have gotten new names. The old Cambie Bridge was called the Connaught Bridge. I think almost 90 years is a pretty good run for Pattullo. I support a different name.

A lot depends on who wins the October 24 election. The premier will have the final say on the name.

I think it shouldn't be controversial giving it a new name. The old bridge was named after the dude, not all future bridges. Port Mann keeping its name made sense, it's still in/goes to Port Mann(even if that area isn't really of note nowadays). Port Mann is just as much the name of the crossing as the bridge. Like Second Narrows. But Patullo, Massey, Alex Fraser et al aren't really significant enough to have all bridges there forever be named after them. New structure, new name.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Fifty bucks on Terry Fox - high name recognition, low controversy.