The legacy of Named Towers in America's skyline
The tradition of naming skyscrapers after corporations is nearly as old as the skyscrapers themselves
When skyscrapers began to shape the skylines of American cities, their impact on the public was unprecedented. Today, a new building might impress us with its facade or slenderness, but consider the dramatic shift at the turn of the 20th century: in 1890, the tallest structure in New York City was a church bell tower; by 1902, the Flatiron Building soared to 22 floors; in 1913, the Woolworth Building reached 57 stories; and by 1931, the Empire State Building topped out at 102 floors. Skyscrapers seemed like creations of a higher power, and companies soon started erecting their own to establish their presence and showcase their power.
When the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company commissioned its tower in 1909, it wasn't just creating office space for its employees. The 700-foot tower that served as headquarters for the company became the tallest building in the world at the time. The investment of $3 million (equivalent to roughly $88 million today) was as much about showcasing corporate stability and success as it was about meeting functional needs.
Similarly, when Frank Woolworth commissioned the Woolworth Building in 1913, he wasn't just creating a headquarters for his retail empire. The $13.5 million cash investment (equivalent to roughly $390 million today) resulted in a building that stood as the tallest in the world, surpassing the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower, and symbolizing the pinnacle of retail success.
These early examples reflect a time when corporations built monumental structures to symbolize their success and ambitions. The skyscraper was both a physical and metaphorical representation of a company's rise—a beacon of innovation and economic power rendered in steel, stone, and glass.
At first, corporations built monumental structures, until they realized they could just pay to put their logo on them
But building such structures isn’t cheap, or fast, and in many cases, a corporation didn't need that much space concentrated in a single address to carry out their business. So over time, the direct connection between a building's owner and its name began to loosen. Companies started to recognize the value of associating their names with prominent buildings, even if they weren't the original builders or sole occupants. This shift gave rise to the modern practice of purchasing naming rights, transforming skyscrapers into valuable assets not just in real estate terms but also in branding and marketing.
The MetLife Building in New York City, formerly Pan Am Building, exemplifies this evolution. Originally named the Pan Am Building when it opened in 1963, it prominently featured the logo of Pan American World Airways at the top, even though the airline was just a tenant. In 1981, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company purchased the building and rebranded it, setting a precedent for naming rights transactions. Despite the change, many New Yorkers continue to call it the Pan Am Building, a testament to the lasting impact of the original naming.
Securing naming rights has become a significant financial undertaking, with costs reaching into the hundreds of millions. In San Francisco, the Salesforce Tower stands as a prime example. Completed in 2018 and soaring 1,070 feet above the city, it became the tallest building in San Francisco. Salesforce secured the naming rights through a 15-year lease estimated at over $560 million, according to The San Francisco Business Times. This investment wasn't just for office space, it was a strategic move to cement Salesforce's presence in the tech hub and to associate its brand with the city's skyline.
Similarly, in Philadelphia, Comcast Corporation solidified its dominance with the Comcast Center and later the Comcast Technology Center, completed in 2008 and 2018, respectively. While financial details remain private, these buildings represent substantial investments in branding, employee consolidation, and corporate identity.
The value of these investments becomes even greater in today’s digital age, when the naming rights extend beyond the physical into the digital. Buildings like the Salesforce Tower become geotags, hashtags, and backdrops for countless social media posts. When mapping services update a building's name, it influences how millions perceive and navigate the city. The digital presence amplifies the branding impact, reaching audiences far beyond the city's physical boundaries.
But the art of building naming goes far beyond having the funds to acquire the naming rights. Some corporate naming endeavors seamlessly integrate into public usage, while others face resistance. The Willis Tower in Chicago is a notable example. Despite Willis Group Holdings investing $17 million over 15 years for the naming rights in 2009, many locals continue to refer to it as the Sears Tower, its original name since its completion in 1973. Companies can purchase naming rights, but they cannot force public adoption.
On the other hand, it didn’t take much for the people of Los Angeles to leave back the Library Tower naming and adopt the new U.S. Bank Tower, even though the building, completed in 1989, stood as the tallest in the city for almost three decades and is an integral part of the city’s identity.
Ultimately, despite a company’s best efforts, the success of a building's corporate name depends on public acceptance. The persistence of original names like the Sears Tower or the Chrysler Building indicates that those names have become part of popular culture and are therefore very hard to change in people’s minds.
The success of naming rights hinges on public acceptance, architectural significance, and the seamless integration of the corporate identity into the urban fabric.
This demonstrates the dual nature of investing in naming rights. On one hand, the public might just not accept it, despite how much money is put into the renaming campaign. On the other hand, when it succeeds, the name can endure long after the naming rights expire or even after the company itself has disappeared.
But not all naming rights ventures yield positive outcomes, even those accepted by the public. The case of Enron Center South in Houston illustrates the potential pitfalls. After Enron's collapse due to corporate fraud in 2001, the building was renamed 1400 Smith Street to distance it from the scandal. This scenario shows the reputational risks companies face when their fortunes decline or controversies arise.
Similarly, Trump Towers across the nation have faced challenges due to the polarizing nature of its namesake. Some residents and businesses have sought to disassociate from the brand, demonstrating that a name can become a liability.
Extending beyond the big-city skyline
Big cities can also be a very atractive market for corporations to seak naming rights
One could think that acquiring naming rights only makes sense in big cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Las Vegas, but in secondary markets, the impact of naming rights can be even more pronounced due to less crowded skylines. The Bank of America Plaza in Dallas, rising 921 feet, and the Bank of America Plaza in Atlanta, at 1,023 feet, dominate their respective cityscapes. For companies like Bank of America, securing naming rights in these cities offers significant visibility and brand dominance at a potentially lower cost compared to primary markets like New York.
In even smaller cities, buildings like Birmingham's Regions Center or Milwaukee's Northwestern Mutual Tower and Commons become defining landmarks. The investment in naming rights in these markets can yield substantial returns in local brand reinforcement and community engagement.
Emerging markets and growing cities offer new opportunities. In Nashville, for instance, a rapidly developing skyline sees new corporate-branded towers rising, each vying for a place in the city's identity. Companies must navigate local cultures and histories to ensure their names are embraced rather than resisted.
The success of naming rights hinges on public acceptance, architectural significance, and the seamless integration of the corporate identity into the urban fabric.
As we look up at the illuminated logos piercing the night sky, we're reminded that while corporations can invest millions to put their names on buildings, it's the people who ultimately decide whether those names become a lasting part of the city's story. The dialogue between corporate ambition and public identity continues to shape America's cities, one skyscraper at a time.