CHICAGO | Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) | 1,451 FT / 442 M | 108 FLOORS | 1974 - Page 19

Wheelingman04 · #**361** Posted **Jul 16, 2009, 10:37 PM**

This is total bullshit. How can such an iconic tower be renamed like that. It is a foreign company too, which makes it even worse, not that I am prejudice but come on.

somebody193 · #**362** Posted **Jul 16, 2009, 11:00 PM**

Until today, I wasn't worried about the name change. I could just keep calling it Sears Tower, if I wanted to.

Now, I realize we live in an age where that can't truly happen. I've realized that it is virtually impossible to escape the reality of a name change. From Wikipedia to this very site, the new (and demeaning) name interjects itself from every corner. Sure, I can call it what I want, but I certainly can't pretend that that's its true name.

M II A II R II K · #**363** Posted **Jul 16, 2009, 11:31 PM**

Yea what happened to my thread (:o)

Calgarian · #**364** Posted **Jul 16, 2009, 11:49 PM**

You can't rename the Sears tower, that's like renaming the Chrysler building.

ungerdog · #**365** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 12:47 AM**

Personally it just comes down to certain iconic towers that I don't want see renamed (iconic in my own view). For example, I don't want the Sears Tower or John Hancock Building renamed, but I have no problem with the Aon Center being renamed. I am not saying that the Aon Center is not iconic in any way, I am just saying there are certain towers that I would not like to see renamed. A couple of others are Empire State and the Chrysler Building.

sabino86 · #**366** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

CHICAGO | Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) | 1,451 FT / 442 M | 110 FLOORS | 1974

NO NO NO!!!!

J.M. · #**367** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 3:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

You can't rename the Sears tower, that's like renaming the Chrysler building.

Hasnt the Chrysler Building almost face the threat of a name change before? As for the Willis Tower thing, I dont mind it, but it should be known for most of its life as the Sears Tower unless the kids eventually forget. Ill make em never forget bwahahaha!

Tower6 · #**368** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 10:03 AM**

This is really symbolic. The tallest building in the USA no longer has an American name.

M II A II R II K · #**369** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 11:21 AM**

Now we have to print up a new Sears Tower poster to reflect that new name, and those glass boxes!

nito · #**370** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 12:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tower6

This is really symbolic. The tallest building in the USA no longer has an American name.

I thought Chicago was trying to portray an image as being an international city that is growing and moving away from its image of a domestic financial centre to one that is trully international, and a candidate for the 2016 Olympics.

Surely its more symbolic to have an international name of a business that is growing and investing in the city. Didn't Sears ditch Chicago and is now in trouble?

shakman · #**371** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 2:05 PM**

According to Financial Times London, the Sears Tower has being renamed to the Willis Tower.

It will take a long time before anyone would reckognize the new name. It will probably be still be referred to as the Sears Tower for many years to come.

Link to the article:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4932a982-7...44feabdc0.html

Mr Roboto · #**372** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 2:17 PM**

It will always be 'Sears tower' to me......but then again, who the hell am I? Especially when all news media will now call it Willis.

Anyways, if they build that hotel on the block, that may help me with dealing with the name change. It will help change the look a little, and show that an era has passed. Plus, I think it looks pretty sweet, so its an even trade.

M II A II R II K · #**373** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 2:30 PM**

I suppose it could have been worse, can you imagine Wal-Mart or Target Tower...

Matty · #**374** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 3:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

I thought Chicago was trying to portray an image as being an international city that is growing and moving away from its image of a domestic financial centre to one that is trully international, and a candidate for the 2016 Olympics.

Surely its more symbolic to have an international name of a business that is growing and investing in the city. Didn't Sears ditch Chicago and is now in trouble?

I'm inclined to agree.

spyguy · #**375** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

I thought Chicago was trying to portray an image as being an international city that is growing and moving away from its image of a domestic financial centre to one that is trully international, and a candidate for the 2016 Olympics.

Surely its more symbolic to have an international name of a business that is growing and investing in the city. Didn't Sears ditch Chicago and is now in trouble?

What's the investment? Asking for nearly $4m in TIF from the city to consolidate several existing offices in the Loop? They paid nothing for the naming rights (I don't blame them for this, though). They haven't really said much on future expansion. $100k to both the Olympics and some charity is nice but little compared to what Aon and Pat Ryan give to the city.

And saying that the name change gives Chicago more of an international profile is like saying that Chicago acquired a New York cosmopolitan feel when Marshall Field's changed to Macy's.

Busy Bee · #**376** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 3:19 PM**

Renaming Sears the Willis Tower will be very similar to the renamed baseball parks—many will still call it the original name and many will call it the new name, but will feel dirty and dishonest while saying it.

Rilestone75 · #**377** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 3:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

I thought Chicago was trying to portray an image as being an international city that is growing and moving away from its image of a domestic financial centre to one that is trully international, and a candidate for the 2016 Olympics.

Surely its more symbolic to have an international name of a business that is growing and investing in the city. Didn't Sears ditch Chicago and is now in trouble?

I have to disagree. Renaming the Sears Tower is effectively the same thing as renaming the Empire State Building to something that has nothing to do with New York City... ESB is very much an international symbol as is the Sears Tower. Changing the name is not going to help the global community feel any better about the direction a city may be headed...

Tower6 · #**378** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

I thought Chicago was trying to portray an image as being an international city that is growing and moving away from its image of a domestic financial centre to one that is trully international, and a candidate for the 2016 Olympics.

Surely its more symbolic to have an international name of a business that is growing and investing in the city. Didn't Sears ditch Chicago and is now in trouble?

Paris usually considered an international city, and yet the Eiffel Tower is still the Eiffel Tower. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

lawfin · #**379** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tower6

Paris usually considered an international city, and yet the Eiffel Tower is still the Eiffel Tower. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The Eiffel tower is named after the architect of such tower: Alexandre Eiffel. The Sears was named by it corporate sponsor. It remains such as of yesterday.

lawfin · #**380** Posted **Jul 17, 2009, 4:28 PM**

I really don't think it is a big deal outside of a few undersexed skyscraper nerds