Talk:Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge

Article Content
Why is this a good deal shorter than its dual, the Lacey V. Murrow Memorial Bridge? --SPUI (talk) 06:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the first one always gets the lion's share of the attention? Seriously, this bridge didn't live the life (and death) of its southern sibling, and in many respects the second, northern span has the societal interest of any old chunk of interstate plunked upon dry land. There was none of the detail and styling of the original bridge; aside from the relative uniqueness of having a floating section (yet still in the context of 'been there, done that'), it has the sterile, almost stereotypical look that a state DOT department would design in the mid to late 20th century...in other words, a totally efficient and an utterly boring and forgettable user experience. The original Murrow Bridge set the standard; everything else is a follower. Until something happens to Hadley Bridge, there's not much more that's actually worthy to write about.


 * Moreover, the naming of the Hadley Memorial Bridge has even less meaning to anyone by 1990 than the renaming of the original floating bridge back in the mid 1950s. Hadley didn't design the bridge he's named for, and much of the original Lacey V. Murrow Bridge that he did design sank during the November 25, 1990 storm, prompting a complete redo of everything between that bridge's end 'highrises', as they are called locally. The floating pontoons of the replacement--while perhaps inspired by the original engineering of Hadley--were designed differently from the original, by a very different set of people. Given this context, in the end it's seems odd and incongruous to an observer standing in 2010 that Hadley was honored for a roadway whose main feature, the floating span, no longer exists as he designed it. And if you've ever driven over either of these current bridges, they feel very much like the lifeless, soulless slabs of interstate that they are. Monoblocks (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed...I repeat...Citation Needed
How do you provide references for something that is considered common knowledge (or in this case, a lack thereof)? We live here and we simply just know that few if any residents know the name of the northern span. This has always been one of the greatest irks of Wikipedia in general for me...how many of these 'Citation Needed' calls are placed in many of these documents. Monoblocks (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're making a statement about a whole region. You should either back up your statement--by finding a source (news article? poll?) that claims nobody knows the name--or remove it.  Also, I've lived in Seattle all my life, and don't refer to either bridges by their official names.  Combined, they are simply "the I-90 bridge". (And, yes, I know it's two bridges.)  But just because I call it something doesn't make it an official, or even a broad, colloquial term.  I'd recommend removing the two sentences at the end of the "Usage" section, since they provide questionable information and don't really apply to the rest of the content within the section.  Jayfr (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Three and a half months, no discussion. Removing the last two sentences of the "Usage" section.  If we revamp this article, we can discuss bringing these sentences back. Jayfr (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)