On corporate re-naming...

I just read a BBC article talking about the Sears Tower being renamed the Willis Tower. Though in a sense it makes sense to name a building after the people who own it (because the Sears tower is named Sears because Sears built and owned it of course!), the article says that there is quite a bit of local opposition to the change in name, with one resident claiming that they'll never call it anything but Sears because thats what it is.

I do understand that. In a sense i'm sure its all blown out of proportion - the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis etc because the Sears Tower is renamed - but I do appreciate the frustration of corporate re-naming. It happened here in St Helens recently when the hundred-or-so year old rugby league stadium Knowsley Road was named the GPS Recruitment Statium after GPS bought the naming rights.

Whats the problem you may ask? Surely it makes good business sense to package the naming rights for the stadium and fund the team to greater sporting success, or rename the skyscraper and ensure it continues to be used and function as a successful business enterprise. Well, yes i'm sure it does. But once you have an iconic building on your hands you move into that preverbial quicksand that is culture and heritage.

These buildings are symbolic for many people. They are inheritently local. Knowsley Road -the St Helens rugby stadium - was a name that instantly brought identification with something local, something historical, a link to the team's (and the town's) ups and downs for a hundred years. It overflowed with character. GPS Recruitment stadium on the other hand oozes about as much passion and heritage as a Tesco microwave dinner. Its just so unappetising, so dull and meaningless and it seems so bizare to seemingly abandon that heritage for what is a small amount of money.

The Sears Tower is a bit different I guess (its neither as old, nor perhaps has the same affection held over by fans of a team), but it is no doubt synonymous with Chicago. It dominates the skyline (sadly i've never seen it from the ground but flying over it certainly does hold a prominent place in a skyline packed with skyscrapers), and was (perhaps is) heralded as the premiere Chicago landmark. As such people probably take offense to what they might percieve as an outsider coming in and renaming their building.

Also, think of it this way. New York is famed for many skyscrapers, but certainly two of the better known would be the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. I would imagine that both of those buildings have had many owners over the years, but they have retained their original names. What if these classics of American architecture, with all their history, heritage and art deco styling were suddenly unveiled to the world as the Walmart Plaza and the Gatorade Emporium? Perhaps it wouldn't make you blink and you'ld think 'oh, ok,' or 'cool!' I think though i'd be sad that money and corporate business had muscled in yet again. It would be akin to the Tower of London being renamed Beefeater World or something (I apologise for the lack of imaginative rebrandings but you get the idea!).

I dunno. It just seems a shame.