Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
The peace bridge name was a complete afterthought for political reasons. How can you say no to a tribute to soldiers. May as well name it the Fight Cancer bridge.  |
This highlights the implementation problem that Bunk alludes to above. This became the perception because of how the project was implemented and communicated to the public. The bridge being linked to Memorial Drive (which is also undergoing landscaping and other improvements as part of the Landscape of Memory project) makes a name like Peace Bridge natural and a great link to this project. The problem was that the way it was handled, people perceived it the way you mention.
The bridge location and project itself (starchitect aside) was called for and identified as a need by a plan done a few years before. However, due to communication fumbles, this was never made apparent to the general public and some people thought it was dreamt up by some out-of-touch politicians.
If this project had been handled and communicated more appropriately from the outset, I think the public perception would have been a lot different. Not to say the media and other parties haven't played a role here too. The misinformation regarding the cost of a run-of-the-mill bridge (there is still a lot of people that think it could be done for $5M), how it is being funded, and lumping it in with the other bridge project has left a lot of people needlessly confused and angry.
All in all, it has been a perfect storm of mishandling of the process of informing the public, combined with a large dose of misinformation.