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

[Tom In Chicago]

Hey Willis. . . FUCK YOU!!!

[Steely Dan]

yeah, i hope these clowns are denied the TIF money.

[lawfin]

^^^^I absolutely concur

[jc5680]

[J_M_Tungsten]

Just some pics I took on May 23 of the always popular Sears Tower. I can't wait for my new camera! I think these pics could have been so much cooler with more detail.

[SolarWind]

May 18, 2009

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Hey Willis. . . FUCK YOU!!!

^ For agreeing to move jobs from the suburbs into the Sears Tower? Yeah, fuck them...

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ For agreeing to move jobs from the suburbs into the Sears Tower? Yeah, fuck them...

I suggest that you develop a more mature outlook toward the names of legendary buildings. How long has Chrysler been gone from the Chrysler Building in NYC? Since well before any of us where born, yet the building is famous around the world. Do you want to see the John Hancock Center, Tribune Tower or the Wrigley Building renamed? Of course not. The list could go on and on, covering many cities around the world. IMO, the US has let money rule in far too many instances and, as a result, landmark names on many structures have disappeared. The Sears Tower will always be the Sears Tower to me.

[the urban politician]

^ I already have a "mature" outlook, thanks.

In fact, I'm mature enough to get beyond the transience of corporate names and instead recognize that it is the structure itself and the people who invest in them that matter, not the people who abandon them. Sears abandoned Chicago, so they lose any right to a name. Companies that invest in Chicago should not be told to fuck off--sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

[Chicago_Forever]

I think Tom was telling Willis to fuck off because they wanted tif money after getting the sweetest deal so I totally agree with Tom and would also like say FUCK YOU WILLIS!

[the urban politician]

^ Yeah, in that context I guess I can understand the "fuck you" sentiment

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by harryc

The prestige factor is worth it if your business needs that kind of thing.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

In fact, I'm mature enough to get beyond the transience of corporate names and instead recognize that it is the structure itself and the people who invest in them that matter, not the people who abandon them. Sears abandoned Chicago, so they lose any right to a name.

The whole country and much of the world knows it as "Sears Tower". Much of the prestige comes from that specific name. The big NYC towers that retain the names of once-famous, long-departed corporations (e.g. Chrysler, Woolworths) demonstrate that these names matter. Today, David Letterman (or anyone, even, say, his equivalent in the UK) can toss off a reference to the Sears Tower without having to explain anything. Are we going to re-educate the world -- and tourists to our city -- to be excited about "Willis Tower" ? That would work only if it still held the world's-tallest crown.

I don't even understand why the owners or Willis would change the name; there is more prestige in the "Sears Tower" brand than there likely ever will be with "Willis Tower".

Importantly, the way the big-box retailer has drifted into shopping-mall, parking-lot, discounter oblivion, I don't think the average non-Chicagoan, or young Chicagoan, really associates Sears Tower with Sears Roebuck anymore. So there is no reason to whine about "punishing" Sears or trying to distance the building from them.

The tower's name has taken on its own life and it just seems to be value-destruction to rename it. I think of how Ford realized how stupid it was to rename the Taurus as the "Five Hundred" and then quickly reversed themselves recently. But a slightly more apropos example would be Wrigley Field -- Wrigley already ceased ownership of the facility; they recently sold out to an east coast family; suppose that in addition, or even just instead, they picked up and moved their company and operations to Dallas. Would you support a name change to Aon Field? I think not.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Great example of why your arguement is wrong right there at the end. Sports fields get renamed (and even rebuilt) all of the time and the brand name and image isn't tarnished. They still play the same role in our society no matter what we call them. People don't know about Sears Tower because its named Sears Tower, they know about it because they see it and go "holy shit! That's a big fucking building!" and then ask to find out what its called. Changing the name from Sears to Willis has no effect on the fact that Sears/Willis is indeed a big fucking black building.

I would like to point out that renaming Sears Tower to another name in exchange for profit is the most Chicago solution here. Chicago is what it is because Chicago was and still is to some extent the most Capitalist city in the world. Chicago rose out of the mud in a storm of raw Capitalist fervor, it is only right that the names of our star buildings go to the highest bidder...

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Great example of why your arguement is wrong right there at the end. Sports fields get renamed (and even rebuilt) all of the time and the brand name and image isn't tarnished.

^ "Great example of why your argument is wrong" right there in your 2nd sentence. Yankee Stadium would have probably the most lucrative naming rights of any stadium in the country, and even the greedy Yankees/Steinbrenners opted to preserve the historic name. Did I mention they tore down the stadium and built a different one on a different site? Still kept the name. Probably a similar situation for Fenway and Wrigley. But sports stadiums are not an ideal comparison, since MLB, NFL, etc. promote their sports as a whole so you have no choice but to go to whatever stadium's available, so yes, Citifield can replace Shea. Marshall Field's is a slightly better comparison, and lo and behold, Macy's has failed to attract patrons to some extent. However, Sears is even more susceptible to name recognition, since department store shopping is at least a necessity on certain occasions, while there can be zillions of vacation activities competing for one's time.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the whole world will take no interest in a "Willis Tower"; I'm trying to emphasize only that recognition and interest in that big black tower, and what it means to Chicago and architecture, will drop off to a noticeable degree, so squandering the beyond-national household name-recognition is foolish. It sort of reverts to a local/regional landmark, rather than continuing as a historic global landmark aging in a stately fashion through its autumn years, like say Chrysler. And now that it will be the world's #5 or the country's #2 etc., there won't be enough impetus for the new name to stick. So why kill off the history?

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

People don't know about Sears Tower because its named Sears Tower,

Well many people across the country and the world do know only the name and maybe that it's a tall building, somewhere in America. They might not know it's in Chicago, and they might not be able to pick it out of a lineup. If gramps tells junior all about the Sears Tower during Thanksgiving dinner in Tampa, junior has never seen it but is already aware of its iconic existence. Repeat example on BBC radio in Edinburgh, in a textbook in Beijing, in a pop song in Delhi, etc.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I would like to point out that renaming Sears Tower to another name in exchange for profit is the most Chicago solution here. Chicago is what it is because Chicago was and still is to some extent the most Capitalist city in the world. Chicago rose out of the mud in a storm of raw Capitalist fervor, it is only right that the names of our star buildings go to the highest bidder...

Without revisiting the above comments regarding whether the Sears Tower name is important enough to want to preserve, and taking your capitalism comment by itself, I suspect you may reconsider when you reread your paragraph later. This whole forum has little reason for existence if the mantra of all things urban is "maximization of profit" (like blank parking podiums and drive-thru banks). Shall we rename Wrigley and Tribune next? Michigan Avenue and Grant Park too? How about the Statue of Liberty or Bunker Hill? Permanence and continuity of culture and history tie together the generations and are part of the essence of civilization.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ "Great example of why your argument is wrong" right there in your 2nd sentence.

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.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the whole world will take no interest in a "Willis Tower"; I'm trying to emphasize only that recognition and interest in that big black tower, and what it means to Chicago and architecture, will drop off to a noticeable degree, so squandering the beyond-national household name-recognition is foolish. It sort of reverts to a local/regional landmark, rather than continuing as a historic global landmark aging in a stately fashion through its autumn years, like say Chrysler. And now that it will be the world's #5 or the country's #2 etc., there won't be enough impetus for the new name to stick. So why kill off the history?

Well if the name doesn't take, then why does changing the official name matter at all? Names don't matter because they are only words. Words gain their meaning from the physical world and, despite the fact that there are 3 or 4 buildings taller than it, its still going to be a big fucking building. Also, don't forget, most people can't tell Sears from Hancock, the name recognition isn't very strong outside of the Midwest area.

Without revisiting the above comments regarding whether the Sears Tower name is important enough to want to preserve, and taking your capitalism comment by itself, I suspect you may reconsider when you reread your paragraph later. This whole forum has little reason for existence if the mantra of all things urban is "maximization of profit" (like blank parking podiums and drive-thru banks). Shall we rename Wrigley and Tribune next?

You suspect wrong. The name "Sears Tower" means absolutely nothing that "Willis Tower" can't. Sears Tower has relatively low national recognition and almost no global recognition. 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.

You bring up a good example, Parking Podiums. That is not a result of a maximization of profit, that trend is a result of a maximization of profit while being manipulated by poor public policy. Do you think there would be huge parking podiums everywhere if there wasn't a ridiculous 1 for 1 parking requirement? They would at least be significantly smaller if there was no minimum parking requirement.

Michigan Avenue and Grant Park too? How about the Statue of Liberty or Bunker Hill? Permanence and continuity of culture and history tie together the generations and are part of the essence of civilization.

You have to be kidding. 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.

Then there is the last sentence, not to get too deep here, but 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. The ideas you espouse of public control of other people's assets and rejection of the new for the "permanence of history" are exactly the same ideas behind NIMBYism and Post Modern architecture (have you read anything written by Lucien Lagrange? He constantly babbles on about the principles of traditional design and how permanent and unchanging his designs are, essentially that last sentence sounded like it could have come from an Elysian press release).

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

...so your snarky sarcasm doesn't work at all while mine does.

No, it doesn't. ["at all"? What an absolutist you are!]

Also, don't forget, most people can't tell Sears from Hancock, the name recognition isn't very strong outside of the Midwest area.
You suspect wrong. The name "Sears Tower" means absolutely nothing that "Willis Tower" can't. Sears Tower has relatively low national recognition and almost no global recognition.

I totally disagree with this--the name Sears Tower has enormous national and significant international recognition. Willis Tower will never mean anything except to those of you in Chicagoland. The fact that some people confuse JHC with Sears does not mean they don't associate it with Chicago.

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.

No one is disputing that fact and that's not the point. Blaming "NIMBY's" in this regard is ludicrous and an overstretch of the term.

...and whenever the public is given a right to manipulate private property horrible things result.

Not always--that's an absolute, sweeping generalization. Perhaps even often, but not "whenever".

You bring up a good example, Parking Podiums. That is not a result of a maximization of profit, that trend is a result of a maximization of profit while being manipulated by poor public policy. Do you think there would be huge parking podiums everywhere if there wasn't a ridiculous 1 for 1 parking requirement? They would at least be significantly smaller if there was no minimum parking requirement.

This is veering from the topic of the Sears Tower, but why doesn't Chicago require the parking to be underground or better situated? We are a much smaller city and we actually have parking limitations as well as requirements, but those ugly podiums would not be tolerated here. Off hand, I can only think on one fugly Holiday Inn that has one and several zoning ordinances were changed after it was built in the early 70's.

Then there is the last sentence, not to get too deep here, but 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. The ideas you espouse of public control of other people's assets and rejection of the new for the "permanence of history" are exactly the same ideas behind NIMBYism and Post Modern architecture (have you read anything written by Lucien Lagrange? He constantly babbles on about the principles of traditional design and how permanent and unchanging his designs are, essentially that last sentence sounded like it could have come from an Elysian press release).

You are obviously entitled to your opinions (in our free land with an extraordinary president from Chicago), however rigid, inflexible, uncompromising and intransigent as some of us may find them to be. Be glad though that the Sears of over three decades ago had the foresight and daringness to build that massive office tower. I don't see anyone else building anything on that scale here today, certainly not Willis, and certainly not a non-mixed use project.

Sears, Roebuck & Company is dead--it's K Mart that is living on in Hoffman Estates now. Remember them as part of Chicago's illustrious history, along with Montgomery Ward and so many others. Building upon its great history is how Chicago continues to progress into the future.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

No, it doesn't. ["at all"? What an absolutist you are!]

Willis Tower will never mean anything except to those of you in Chicagoland.

This is my last reply to you since you have clearly started simply attacking semantics instead of actually responding. Do you see the hypocracy in your above statements? You criticize me for saying "always" and then go say "never" in the next sentence...

No one is disputing that fact and that's not the point. Blaming "NIMBY's" in this regard is ludicrous and an overstretch of the term.

No, I am not blaming NIMBY's, I am suggesting that your argument about the name of this building is the exact same train of thought that NIMBY's apply to architecture. You know "everything around here has always looked like that, no tall buildings or glass" is structurally the same as "that name has always been like that, no new names"...

This is veering from the topic of the Sears Tower, but why doesn't Chicago require the parking to be underground or better situated? We are a much smaller city and we actually have parking limitations as well as requirements, but those ugly podiums would not be tolerated here. Off hand, I can only think on one fugly Holiday Inn that has one and several zoning ordinances were changed after it was built in the early 70's.

Look up the rents in Chicago and SF and compare them. Then notice how Chicago has a history of radical new architectural ideas. If Chicago had oppressive zoning laws like SF then we would have ridiculously high rents and most of our radical, new, architectural ideas would never have come about in favor building crap that fits right into whatever mold the government decrees. Essentially the answer is because Chicago has a tradition of being free-market minded toward development and design and also enjoys lower costs of living because people here are free to experiment with new designs that achieve bigger, better, buildings at lower costs (really has been the trend of Chicago architecture since the Great Fire)...

Be glad though that the Sears of over three decades ago had the foresight and daringness to build that massive office tower. I don't see anyone else building anything on that scale here today, certainly not Willis, and certainly not a non-mixed use project.

Sears/Willis is not mixed use... Its purely office... The large, black, mixed use tower is John Hancock Center. Also, Chicago has had several builds of this size started and one completed within the last 4 years. Trump Tower is actually larger than John Hancock and is mixed use with Hotel, Hotel-Condos, and Condos, plus a huge quantity of Retail at the base. They are putting the finishing touches on it as we speak. That's not to mention Chicago Spire and Waterview Tower which are both supertall and on hold.

Sears, Roebuck & Company is dead--it's K Mart that is living on in Hoffman Estates now. Remember them as part of Chicago's illustrious history, along with Montgomery Ward and so many others. Building upon its great history is how Chicago continues to progress into the future.

Which is exactly why we should allow the rightful owners of what was once their headquarters to remove their now shameful name from its edifice.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I like reading when people get into little arguments on here. It opens my mind to view point’s I had not seen before.

I think that comparing Wrigley field to this Sears Tower naming debate is a perfect! Honestly, I think more Chicagoans would be upset if they changed Wrigley Fields name than the Sears. I know I might get a lot of negative comments for saying this but I think Wrigley field is an eyesore! I walked by the other day and examined it somewhat, they have fencing like the kind you put in your backyard pretty much wrapped around the entire front of the stadium! I know it’s supposed to be have that “untouched old ballpark feel” and that “rustic old look”, but come on. Sorry off topic.

I think everyone brings up great points defending their opinions, but I still fall somewhere in the middle on this name changing debate. Sears WAS a great company back in the day and DID dream big in building this tower. It’s not like they are going to tear down the building and tell everyone to think the "Sears Tower never existed!" I hope that the tours will still respect the history of the tower (Which I’m sure they will) and hope that Willis will also. With that said though, the building still remains an icon in my eyes, and no matter what label it may be given, I will always remember it as being the Sears Tower, and one hell of a tall building!

[FlashingLights]

I view buildings like this as a piece of art. It's not like we go back and rename Picasso's work.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Yes I thought of that, but this world is sadly driven by money, and I'm sure if the price was high enough, some works of art could even be renamed, not likely that would actually happen though.

Trust me at first I was (and somewhat still am) against the renaming of the Sears. One thought I came up with is if I build a house and call it lets say the Justin House, for the time I live there it will be known as the Justin House. If I move out of the Justin house, should I expect the new owner and every owner after me to refer to it as the Justin House! I know its a silly analogy but I found that it made more sense to me that way. To me, it will always be remembered as the Justin House... er.. uh.. I mean the Sears Tower.