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.