I don’t really agree that a bridge should be name after Maurice Richard. As much as i admire the hockey player, he was, after all, a hockey player. An arena, a place in the city, monuments, a street or boulevard, ok, but a bridge. Maurice Richard is part of Quebec and more importantly of Montreal but Montreal is not only about Maurice Richard so i wouldn’t like to go over board on that. It’s a lot for one hockay player.
Of course i won’t loose sleep about it and won’t make a big fuss but the name Champlain should remain, IMO. But i think it is a way for the federal conservative to appeal to nationalist quebeckers.
I think maybe someone realized that the very names “Champlain Bridge” and “Pont Champlain” now have overtones of fail, so they’d prefer to give the new one a fresh name. The sad thing about Maurice Richard is that, while he’s always a nice memory in Montreal, the name is also a reminder of how far back we have to go to find real hockey glory.
Richard was turned down three times for military service. He had already bashed up his ankles and wrists badly enough playing minor-league hockey that they wouldn’t take him for a soldier. There may be issues with considering him a hero, but the war service thing isn’t one of them.
qatzelok 04:13 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
By the time it’s built, it will be the Telus Bridge.
Bert 07:20 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
Not that I would mind another thing named after Maurice Richard, but the Autoroute 50 is already named in his honour.
Kate 11:01 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
It also makes me wonder: so would we have to find something else major to name after Champlain?
Steve Quilliam 11:43 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
I don’t really agree that a bridge should be name after Maurice Richard. As much as i admire the hockey player, he was, after all, a hockey player. An arena, a place in the city, monuments, a street or boulevard, ok, but a bridge. Maurice Richard is part of Quebec and more importantly of Montreal but Montreal is not only about Maurice Richard so i wouldn’t like to go over board on that. It’s a lot for one hockay player.
Of course i won’t loose sleep about it and won’t make a big fuss but the name Champlain should remain, IMO. But i think it is a way for the federal conservative to appeal to nationalist quebeckers.
Kate 13:05 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
I think maybe someone realized that the very names “Champlain Bridge” and “Pont Champlain” now have overtones of fail, so they’d prefer to give the new one a fresh name. The sad thing about Maurice Richard is that, while he’s always a nice memory in Montreal, the name is also a reminder of how far back we have to go to find real hockey glory.
Beeper 16:49 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
Richard didn’t even go to the war. The fact that he’s considered such a hero is beyond me.
Kate 19:07 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
Richard was turned down three times for military service. He had already bashed up his ankles and wrists badly enough playing minor-league hockey that they wouldn’t take him for a soldier. There may be issues with considering him a hero, but the war service thing isn’t one of them.