[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

The best part about this is that I never mentioned anything you just talked about anywhere in my post, so your snarky sarcasm doesn't work at all while mine does.

Hmm, you suggested sports fields get renamed without the brand name and image being tarnished; then I suggested that the ones with strong brand names and images would clearly be tarnished. Then you reply with something vague (and again snarky) that neither addresses my point nor backs up your original point. Either address it or take those two fizzled snarks back to a shelter or a loving home.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Well if the name doesn't take, then why does changing the official name matter at all?

Because, the (new) name doesn't take.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

the name recognition isn't very strong outside of the Midwest area.
...
Sears Tower has relatively low national recognition and almost no global recognition.

Seems we are starting off with different assumptions here. I believe Sears Tower has enough name recognition throughout the country and the world that it's worth preserving. Not a huge amount -- but to the extent, say, a college-educated person in Europe or elsewhere is aware about big cities or landmarks in the US, I believe there is some name recognition -- and most relevantly I believe it's worth trying to preserve. Maybe as a twenty-something you haven't had sufficient opportunity to observe all this. This is not a crime or inadequacy; there is a magnificent world of knowledge out there and no one can gain more than one handful at at time.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

My point is this, Sears tower is a 100% privately owned building, they have every right to change the name and nothing a bunch of NIMBY's say should be allowed to stop that. The argument that we can't change a name because the name has always been that way is the same as saying "we can't build a modern building here because all the other buildings have always been in "ye olde style"". You have no right to determine what they do with their land and whenever the public is given a right to manipulate private property horrible things result.
...
PUBLICLY owned buildings and places are the only places that the public should be able to name. And if the public wants to sell the naming rights (think Millenium Park's variety of sponsorships) so they can afford a better public place, then so be it.

I see now that you have been stuck looking at this issue through the lens of rights - who has the right to rename a building. That's not what I or other people here are discussing. We're just discussing what's desirable. After all, that's a big part of what SSP is all about - geeks trying to argue for one color of paint or another, or modernism over faux French revival style, etc. It's fun & educational. Then, once in a while, once the arguments have been leavened, they might actually be taken to a decisionmaker to try to persuade her or him.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

do you really think that permanence and continuity are the essence of civilization? Last time I checked human civilization has been marked by constant change and evolution, especially the last 150 years. So I guess these forces of "permanence and continuity" are what caused radical modern buildings like Sears to be constructed? I guess the permanence of the empty swamp that was once where the Sears stands now is what caused such a building to exist? That is absurd, the entire philosophy behind modern architecture like the Sears is the rejection of the past and acceptance of radical change.

You're reading way too much into my comment -- as though it is some manifesto to pervade every corner of civic life. From the sentence's context, it should be clear I'm talking about the permanence and continuity of established, widely-cherished names, institutions, etc. Thus, NYC will not likely rename Times Square in the foreseeable future; thus we mourn Marshall Field's passing into Macy's; thus, the Eiffel Tower will not become Citroen Tower; etc. And those are just geographical names. What about the colors of the national flag or the logo of the de facto national drink (Coca-Cola) or the names of the biggest national sporting events (Super Bowl, World Series). There are certain core things that define a nation or a culture, so the majority of people generally desire that those stay unchanged. If they do change, we certainly make the most of it but we also feel a part of us is gone. Beyond those, though, change and progress, in styles or language or technology etc., are, as you suggest, hallmarks of and essential to civilization. But even those change and flourish as they do in large part only because there remains a certain core bedrock or anchor that doesn't change or changes only very slowly.