Sears Tower to be renamed Willis Tower!

[Tower6]

Sears moved about 30 miles. Its not like they moved to New York or anything. The move had everything to do with economics. I really don't understand the hatred of suburbia some of you guys have. Not everyone wants to live in a dense urban-style neighborhood.

Believe it or not, there are people who live in the suburbs and work downtown. They can even take the Metra if they want.

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

^ A great number of people (and companies) just want a piece of land to call their own, and to do with as they please. That is what suburbia is for. The vast majority of suburbanites aren't racist white-flight-ers or reclusive shut-ins. They just want a calmer pace, and safe places to raise their kids. Urbanites should not hold that against them. The suburbs aren't that dull anyway. Some people prefer six-lane boulevards and sparkly-clean landscaped office parks to alleys and street frontage. Nothing wrong with that, especially once inexpensive electric cars become available.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

If thats the best you got...this argument was dead on arrival...ahem...Steely...

what are you talking about?

there has not been one single shred of evidence that connects the rumored recladding of the tower to this issue of renaming it willis tower. unless you have some unknown insider info that you'd like to share with the rest of us, then i'm afraid that it is in fact your argument that was dead on arrival.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


as for this side issue of city vs. suburbs, we don't need to derail this thread with that off topic stuff, my point was that sears left chicago when the city needed them most, whether that move was 30 miles west, or halfway around the world to china, the fact is that they abandoned chicago, the city of their birth, and left us high and dry, at a critical moment in our downtown's history. for that i will never forgive them and it is the reason i will not be sad to see the sears name stripped from our proud city's tallest building.

look, the only reason i went off on this rant is because someone was accusing me of not having any pride in my city because i am not adamantly opposed to the name change, but that accusation was completely baseless, because, if anything, i have WAY TOO MUCH pride in my sweet home chicago.

if you don't like my reasoning for why i am ok with the name change, that is fine; adults can agree to disagree, but anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes on this webforum knows that challenging my chicago patriotism is a fool's challenge. i'm a freaking hard-core chicago-fundamentalist for christ sakes! i know the truth of the universe, and that truth is CHICAGO.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

If thats the best you got...this argument was dead on arrival...ahem...Steely...

Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali

Well...now I know why your name is Nowhereman.

I suggest you and Steely go find a coffee shop to stand in front of and find people to listen to ya.

Wow, what we've got here is a first rate butt-hurt troll-clown. Go spam some other thread with your useless insults...

[ZZ-II]

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

Fuck that. I am never calling it Willis Tower. It will always be Sears Tower in Chi-City...

absolutely! no chance i'll accept willi's tower. terrible name

[kool maudit]

the only reason i'm not terribly up in arms is that i sort of like the name "willis;" i think it suits that tower.

[DetroitSky]

Hey...it could be worse.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

say what? it's precisely because i am so damn fiercely proud of my city that i welcome the name change. back in 1992, the sears corporation gave a big giant middle finger to the city of chicago, the city that had nurtured its growth since its inception, by moving their headquarters out of the city. ever since that pivotal moment in history, having our city's tallest building named after such a disloyal and back-stabbing corporation like sears has been an insulting and embarrassing slap in the face for any chicagoan who takes an ounce of pride in their city.

if sears had shown one single iota of care for the city of chicago, i might feel differently, but they didn't, so screw those duplicitous bastards and good riddance to that awful, shameful name. now our tallest building can be named after a business entity that actually gives enough of a shit about the city of chicago to locate some of its employees here.





you must not have terribly good reading comprehension skills because the rumored recladding of the building is a separate issue from the renaming of the building. i will adamantly oppose any cockamamie scheme to resurface the building in any color other than black.

Dude, Steely, is Sears corp your ex girlfriend? There are no rational arguments on either side for the old name or this new name, so let's just fuck it.

But seriously... If you want to talk about loyalty of corporations, that has to be a joke right? How many corporations moved out of Chicago completely or agreed to be bought out? Do you refuse to ever use chase banks because bank one is a traitor? Do you refuse to eat McD's because it built a campus in the burbs? Playboy is also a traitor for not having the mansion in Chicago too right? I mean I could go on, but it's absurd.

A fact about our metro: Most of our big name companies are in the burbs anyway, with their legal and accounting servicers concentrated downtown.... you are beyond irrational with this whole corporate loyalty argument. Do you take your argument further and say an individual who moved out of Chicago is a traitor too? Get real dude.

But, let's stick with your terms. The fact is, Sears the corporation GAVE US THIS TOWER AND THE MUSCLE OF OUR SKYLINE. Why is that not counted as loyalty?

This was never about corporate loyalty. Human minds associate names with images. The name Sears Tower conjured the image of the grandest, baddest, muscular skyscraper on Earth, and willis tower DOES NOT, period. It's about linguistics, iconography, and our culture. The corporate side has nothing to do with a name.

My 2 cents, again.

[Steely Dan]

^ apparently you missed the part where i posted this:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

look, the only reason i went off on this rant is because someone was accusing me of not having any pride in my city because i am not adamantly opposed to the name change, but that accusation was completely baseless, because, if anything, i have WAY TOO MUCH pride in my sweet home chicago.

if you don't like my reasoning for why i am ok with the name change, that is fine; adults can agree to disagree

if my chicago patriotism had not been challenged, then i wouldn't have gone off on that rant. you can accuse me of all sorts of things, just don't ever tell me that i don't have pride in my city because that is a load of grade A bullshit.

[munda]

even Archimedes knew how important Chicago is to the world
"give Chicago a place to stand and she will move the earth"

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by chiphile

[
But seriously... If you want to talk about loyalty of corporations, that has to be a joke right? How many corporations moved out of Chicago completely or agreed to be bought out? Do you refuse to ever use chase banks because bank one is a traitor? Do you refuse to eat McD's because it built a campus in the burbs? Playboy is also a traitor for not having the mansion in Chicago too right? I mean I could go on, but it's absurd.

These are completely different examples. Getting bought out isn't voluntary and the jobs generally don't go anywhere. I think Chase actually moved more employees into Chicago when they bought Bank One. McDonald's campus has always been in the burbs, so how is that "abandoning" the city. Playboy's mansion may not be here, but its headquarters still is, there are no Sears corporate employee's anywhere in central Chicago anymore, that is abandoning the city. To try and compare moving thousands of jobs out of the city with moving the playboy mansion or merging with another company is absurd.

[Chicago103]

I just had to come out of my SSP coma for this (actually the real reason is that I just got home Internet service for the first time in ages).

Anyways, I personally don't like the name Willis Tower at all and there is no way I could psychologically think of Sears Tower as anything but the Sears Tower. The biggest beef I have is what others have brought up, that Willis will only own 3.5% of the space and what of the tenants that have more will they try to get the naming rights and what happens if/when Willis moves? It's that slippery slope that I am worried about, a historic name should just stay the way it is. Honestly I even have my doubts this name change will really happen at all, we will find out for sure in July I guess.

Originally Posted by Tower6

Sears moved about 30 miles. Its not like they moved to New York or anything. The move had everything to do with economics. I really don't understand the hatred of suburbia some of you guys have. Not everyone wants to live in a dense urban-style neighborhood.

To someone like me who doesn't have a car and lives in the city an office park in Hoffman Estates might as well be on the moon. I once met an older man who used to work for Sears back when they were in the Sears Tower and before that even when they where in that huge warehouse complex on the west side. This guy is a native of the Little Italy neighborhood near UIC and was used to living close to work (Sears headquarters) for most of his working life and when Sears moved to Hoffman Estates he decided to retire rather than do the hellish commute to what to him is the middle of nowhere. When the Sears Tower was first built it was built where it was precisely because of its central location so that it's employees would have easy transportation access in that the hub of the CTA system, METRA and yes even for automobiles via the Circle Expressway interchange and the like was right there. The move to Hoffman Estates alienated many long term corporate employees. So there is some solace in the fact (as Steely Dan already put it) that the name change is a middle finger to the company that gave a middle finger to the city, even though they redeemed themselves slightly with Sears on State and the modest number of tech corporate employees they moved downtown to the upper floors of that building.

Lastly, one question that hasn't been addressed yet. What the hell does the Sears Tower Skydeck have to say about this?! They are currently undergoing a major and exciting renovation process. Is it going to be called the Willis Tower Skydeck ? Maybe keep the name (I presume they can since they are technically a private business within the building), or perhaps just "The Skydeck".

[texcolo]

Well, I guess if you already have a 'Big John', you know have a 'Big Willie.' I think that having a Big Willie is not too shabby.

[Dylan Leblanc]

I support this name change.

[munda]

Big John
Big Willie
Big Trumpy (sounds lame but eh)

[Krases]

Wut choo talkin' bout' Willis?

[jodelli]

Sure, why not. Big John, Big Willie, The Donald(Big Wig?), the Big A...

[emathias]

Has anyone pointed out that once the Sears Tower is renamed, the big three towers that have defined the Chicago skyline for thirty years will have gone from a demonstration of the diversity of the Chicago economy - retail, oil and insurance - to all being named for insurance companies?

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by emathias

Has anyone pointed out that once the Sears Tower is renamed, the big three towers that have defined the Chicago skyline for thirty years will have gone from a demonstration of the diversity of the Chicago economy - retail, oil and insurance - to all being named for insurance companies?

yes, in the sears tower thread.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by emathias

Has anyone pointed out that once the Sears Tower is renamed, the big three towers that have defined the Chicago skyline for thirty years will have gone from a demonstration of the diversity of the Chicago economy - retail, oil and insurance - to all being named for insurance companies?

Yes, I've thought about it, but its not really reflective of the actual diversity of the economy here at all. Chicago has only become more diverse since the death of the manufacturing industry in the United States since we've been forced to adapt to that and get new sources of growth. The reason you see the buildings all named for insurance companies is the same reason you see lots of building named for banks, being in the finance industry, they obviously have lots of money, and therefore own lots of assets. One of the safest assets over time is Real Estate, therefore insurance companies purchase lots of buildings as collateral. Its just a natural adaptation to the way in which we construct buildings. Companies used to come up with the demand and get a developer to build it for them like Sears. Now the model is a developer finds tenants and then constructs a building and sells the name to whoever rents the most space.

In any case its largely a result of our migration to different business models and to an information and services economy.