Edifice Complex

The Sears Tower--the tallest building in the United States and once, the tallest in the world--is to be renamed for Willis Group Holdings, an insurance company that is its newest tenant. After the company moves into its offices in the tower this summer, the building will be known as the Willis Tower.

Understandably, the name change is controversial. Chicagoans wonder about the identity of the icon that has punctuated its skyline for nearly four decades:

Further, the group of investors that own the building are considering a paint job to give an updated look to the armature of a building that, admittedly, is more agressive than graceful. (below, via)

Left unexplained is how the makeover helps the building achieve a LEED rating, but one assumes that the paint job alone will reflect a lot of light, and therefore cut cooling costs:

Sources said the owners are considering an expensive paint job, recladding the tower in silver. Since its opening in 1973, Chicago's iconic tower and the nation's tallest building has been adorned in classic black.

A brighter look could draw fresh attention to the tower, which has struggled to hold tenants against newer generations of office buildings. Silver could figure into a broader effort to "rebrand" the building and highlight its advances in energy efficiency.

The owners...could seek what's known as a silver LEED rating, bestowed by a group that promotes environmental advances in buildings. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating is third best after gold and platinum, but nonetheless an achievement for a building that's 36 years old.

How do these plans impact Chicago's sense of itself? One columnist points out that a significant percentage of the city's set pieces have, in fact, been renamed over recent years. From baseball parks and golf courses to highways and department stores, the city has become something else than what it once was, at least in name. There's also the fact that Sears, the building's namesake original tenant, hasn't resided there in nearly 20 years.

How do you put a value on a name? How does one rectify the constantly changing nature of a city with sentimental and historic value?

(Thanks, B)

Comments

[architects nottingham]

I think it is a shame when towns decide that icon buildings should be knocked down or tenants choose new buildings to occupy. These old buildings are what made the city's architecture. I am pleased that they have decided to repaint and modernise this building this means you can combine old architecture with new architecture, it is always interesting and inspiring to see how the two work together.

[Menexis Merchant]

You know what, even though most people will still refer to it as the sears towers such as myself, I don't really like the new name that they changed it to.

[sam]

ok

[Kevin]

What is most intriguing about your post is the notion that Chicago natives are concerned by the possibility of their most significant cultural icon losing its symbolism. It would be interesting to do a polling of Chicago citizens to determine whether they feel the name change (Sears Tower to Willis Tower) or the updated paint job is the driving factor of concern. It is fascinating to consider how large of an emotional impact the changing of a few letters or a different hue of paint could have on an entire culture’s perception of a building. Is it really the paint or name change that is causing the stir? Could it just be an excuse for public outcry that Chicago’s once monumental structure simply isn’t special anymore? After all, the Sears Tower has somehow managed to transform itself from the tallest building in the world to the now minor blip on skyscraper radar. This idea brings forth another interesting debate that would begin to question the evolving nature and symbolism of buildings post completion. How can a building like the Sears Tower keep its iconic labeling while the very reason that it is in fact iconic is being dismissed by much taller skyscrapers like the Nakheel Tower or the Burj Dubai? Maybe what this discussion is really challenging are the qualifications for classification as architecturally iconic. I believe it is impossible to be labeled an icon when your only unique condition is something as vulnerable as height. Categorizing a building like the Sears Tower (or any skyscraper) as an icon is putting unfair pressure on a building to perform beyond reasonable expectations. Chicago natives aren’t disgruntled about the name change or the paint job that their building is going to receive. They are upset at the realization that their icon never was an icon and therefore can be renamed and painted. You don’t see the Acropolis being outfitted with light reflecting paint or the Taj Mahal being renamed the Taj KingFisher. Likewise, the Greeks and Indians don’t fear losing their architectural icons while the Chicagoans do.