Renaming the Sears Tower and Other Signs of the Apocalypse
While the nickname “Second City” was a derogatory appellation stuck on Chicago by a New York columnist in the 1950s, for most of the 20th century Chicagoans were well aware of their status as a pale echo of New York in the eyes of east coast elites. Known world wide as a haven for gangsters rather than for its stunning architecture, world class museums, and artistic community, the city could not escape being compared to New York.
The Sears Tower is not just the tallest building in Chicago. The fact that it is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere is immaterial to the emotional attachment the city has for the building. For many years, the Sears Tower was the tallest building in the world, a source of immense pride for residents. For a city that has stood in the shadow of New York for so long, it was the one thing Chicagoans could point to; no matter how superior New York seemed in many eyes, the Big Apple couldn’t top the Tower.
From its completion in 1974 until 1998, Chicago had this distinction. It has since been surpassed by three other buildings but remains the tallest in the United States. And now, a bunch of foreigners are moving in and claiming the right to alter the landmark, to bury the distinction.
It is at times like this that the city misses it’s signature columnist, Mike Royko. A writer whose withering, sarcastic broadsides made a laughing stock of the elder Mayor Daley and his machine, Royko also had a deep and abiding affection for Chicago — its ball teams, its neighborhoods, and, most of all, the ordinary people who made the city the special place it still is in most people’s hearts.
I can imagine the columnist writing a piece on the Sears Tower name change and using his alter ego and Chicago everyman Slats Grobnik to comment on the absolute tone deafness of Willis CEO Joseph Plumeri, who couldn’t understand what all the hub-bub was about:
“Would you rather have an iconic building with nobody in it, which doesn’t say a lot about Chicago, or someone with enough faith to take the space?” he asked. “The headline should be: A company has decided to invest money in Chicago, and if you miss that headline, you’ve missed the side of the building by a mile and a half.”
Slats Grobnik may have inquired whether this fellow Willis was the new shortstop for the Cubs. But Royko would have skewered that kind of stupidity the same way he hammered on heartless bureaucrats, crooked pols, and greedy businessmen for 20 years. (Royko left the Sun Times in 1984, when Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, saying, “no self-respecting fish would be wrapped in a Murdoch paper.”)
Meanwhile, the current Mayor Daley doesn’t want to get involved in the controversy. He stood aside when Macy’s bought Chicago’s premier department store, Marshall Fields, and changed the name of their flagship store on State Street — a move that caused nearly as much angst as the current to-do over the Sears Tower. Besides, as Hizzoner points out, Sears moved out of the building a long time ago. But it was not the company that people associated with the tower, but rather that feeling it gave them that Chicago was not just some poor knock off of a major city but a glittering place in its own right. The advent of the Sears Tower heralded an era in Chicago where its symphony became recognized as the best in the world, live theater underwent a remarkable revival, and its grand architecture once again became the model for the world.
And now, a bunch of insurance salesmen want to destroy that special feeling. A good explanation of the inexplicable was given by Dr. Joel Whalen of De Paul University:
We know one of the hallmarks of quality is constancy, and change is not always good. We’re friendly to everyone but we don’t make friends quickly. It takes years to make a friend. You’re from out of town and we don’t know who you are.
There has been an almost universal sentiment expressed in man in the street interviews by local media that Chicagoans will never call the building Willis Tower but will always refer to it as the Sears Tower. Willis can put their name on it but that won’t change the salient fact that most Chicagoans can’t see that name when they look at the city’s magnificent skyline and see the building towering above the rest of the skyscrapers, reminding residents that their city is indeed a special place — a place of which all can take pride.
Perhaps Gary Coleman might lend his voice to the cause and deliver the line as only he can do it, “What you talkin’ about, Willis?”
I don’t believe in “Karma” but perhaps is only reaping what they sow. After all, how can a city produce the likes of Richard Daley, Ron Blagovich and Obama and not get repaid in kind? Really, no sympathy from this Southerner, after all Atlanta did burn down and we are baaaack!!!!
If I were still living in Chicago, I’d be a be a lot more concerned with Chicago’s close identification with being a corrupt cesspool, but I wisely left that dysfunctional culture years ago so I really don’t care about the really critical and important issues like building names.
It all started when the White Sox sold their birthright to US Cellular and erased nearly a Century of Chicago tradition by renaming New Commisky Park as US Cellular Field.
Mike Royko was a personal favorite of mine for many years..his commenty was invariably sharp and to-the-point.
He was a master of skewer. His commentary on this situation would have been scathing. He is sorely missed.
S.M.
It’s hard to see the big deal here. It’s not like the buildings name is being changed from “The Chicago Tower”. The Willis Tower sounds ok….it certainly sounds every bit as tower-like as Sears Tower.
And it could be worse, it could have been taken over by Chiquita and painted yellow. Being known as “The Big Banana” would no doubt have left Chicagoans feeling even more inferior to New Yorks own fruity title.
I am so glad I do not live in that city anymore. I just don’t understand how the people can “take it” year after year and not do anything about it. Unless the populace is waiting for their share of the cut. Uhhh RE: it IS a really important issue since millions are connected with naming rights. Lived in Chicago from 1987 until 1997. Just glad I am not there anymore.
So what is it about Chicago that prevents local businesses from succeeding and buying the local landmarks? Sears left and a London-based business is buying their building. Marshall Fields got bought out by the NYC based Macy’s. Chicago is no Detroit but I’d be worried at why local businesses aren’t able to compete.
The fact that Chicago-based businesses can’t make money like in NYC or London should be what makes Chicagoans feel like poor relations not some building.
“Sears left and a London-based business is buying their building.”
Sears left long ago. The building was designed for projected space needs, based on their catalogue business, and Sears simply never grew into those projections. Rather than be a landlord for several floors of tenants, Sears sold the tower and moved to the burbs. The company’s still in business, and it’s still based in the Chicago area.
I think the real issue is, why rename a landmark? It’s a valid question.
at least it’s not been renamed the obama tower yet!!
Wow, Moran, where do you get your information? You need a new source.
Just one of the reasons people here are angry is that Willis was handed naming rights in return for a lousy three floor lease. They did NOT buy the building. They did not pay one extra nickel for naming rights. The current owners just threw the name, and history, away.
And what were you drinking when you came to the conclusion that “Chicagoans … look at the city’s magnificent skyline and see the building towering above the rest of the skyscrapers, reminding residents that their city is indeed a special place — a place of which all can take pride.” I’m gagging on that one. Daley and his political cronies are turning this city into a cesspool. Why do you think so many of the commenters here mention that they are glad not to live here anymore? Wish I didn’t.
I move to name it the Wesley Willis Tower.
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago!
The same thing happened in my native Toronto. A media company called Rogers Communications bought up the Sky Dome (which was an awesome sports arena with an awesome name) and renamed it the “Rogers Center”, a lame ass name that in turn makes the dome lame. Needless to say, people are still pissed about it years later, and there’s not a damn thing we can do.
Poor Chicago (my place of birth). I understand the angst. I live in San Francisco now, and years after it happened, I haven’t recovered from them renaming Candlestick Park. Maybe they could compromise and call it the Bruce Willis Tower so it would still retain some of its City of the Big Shoulders image.
Whaddaya mean, ”used to be associated with gangsters” ???
STILL IS!
Just ask Rahm…
Mr Wolf
Willis Tower?
Must be just a second-rate building. Otherwise it would be named after Obama.
Folks,we’re losing our identification by standing by and not objecting like bunch of whipped pups or a herd of sheep.
Renaming it after Obama might make sense, how about:
- Teleprompter Towers
- Sky High DEbT
- U4 (uh…uh…um…uh)
- Towering Ego
- Social Izzzum
- The One
- M00bs
- The Precedent
Just another weigh station in the ongoing decline:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/0040-the-decline-chicago-the-city-doesnt-work
So wait, Chicagoans are upset that the name of one corporation replaces the name of another corporation on the building? Perhaps Sears & Roebuck should have purchased rights further out than 2003. Oh well, capitalism is a b#$%# ain’t it?
I am a Chicagoan, loved Royko, and I don’t care about the Sears Tower or Willis Tower. Nelson Algren another Chicago writer wrote the book “City on the Make”, and probably would have loved this. Things go to the highest bidder.
Sears got sick of lining the pockets of the machine, let the foreigners do it. They can be the chumbalones.
Illinois is so corrupt, they call politics, “The Combine” the way Dems and Reps feed at the public trough.