Sears Tower, Chicago, Illinois


	Please feel free to sign our guestbook. We appreciate hearing what you have to say about Sears Tower! If you have a news tip, simply email info@searstower.org . Is it justifiable for Willis Group Holdings to "rebrand" America's tallest building in the name of corporate greed — even despite strong public resistence? Will this move garner more respect for their firm? Don't forget to cast your vote in the poll! (Post New Comment) (View Latest Comments) "You people don't know anything" Posted by Mike from New York (Tue, Feb 9, 2010) It's ridiculous how you people are pining over a company that trucked jobs out of Chicago 15 years ago to the suburbs. Sears built the Sears Tower way back when because they thought they would have an ever-expanding company with a growing need for office space. Well, Sears failed and moved all of their employees to another town. They haven't even occupied the building for 15 years! In New York, this happens all the time. The "Pan-AM" building is now the MetLife Building because Pan-Am went out of business. The Citicorp Center (the white building with the slanted roof that defines part of the skyline) is now just 601 Lexington. Why? CITIGROUP MOVED OUT. Plus, Citi sucks as a company just like Sears. So while all you people complain and sign petitions to keep the name of a failing company on the nation's largest building for no reason at all, just think of all the money United Airlines has to pay to put their name on the Bulls' stadium or how much US Cellular has to pay to the White Sox. If Sears was out saving jobs and helping the community, I could understand the backlash, however they are not and in Hoffman Estates going bankrupt. At least Willis is a good company that has jobs (yes, JOBS) for Chicagoans INSIDE THE BUILDING. Note from the editor: Pan-Am Building and Citicorp Center are hardly in the same class of distinction as Sears Tower. Those are not nationally recognized attractions drawing millions of tourists per year. If anything, the Chrysler Building is a more proper comparison. And yet Chrysler never even occupied the very landmark tower that it commissioned. Furthermore, such a notable skyscraper would never be renamed because people associate "Chrysler Building" with the landmark tower that it has always represented, regardless of corporate affiliation. This is not about Sears, it is about "Sears Tower". Posted by Marsha from Sabina, Ohio (Mon, Feb 8, 2010) Leave the Sears Tower the 'Sears Tower', I want to take my granddaughter to the Sears Tower not the willis tower. Somebody somewhere just has to change the name of something & just screw-up the 'Tower's' history. Can't you idiots just leave well enough alone????? "Sears Tower" Posted by Samantha Maniago from Elgin, Illinois (Thu, Jan 28, 2010) Calling the Sears Tower "Willis Tower" is dumb. It's like changing the grass's name to "rain." "Awesome Information" Posted by Samantha Maniago from Elgin, Illinois (Thu, Jan 28, 2010) All of this information helped me a lot in my history fair! Thanks! (Well, I got it out of a book, but this website was in the book!) "The SEARS Tower" Posted by Payton from San Angelo, TX (Thu, Jan 21, 2010) I agree with anyone who says that when you change the name of a national landmark all it does is just screw up history. When you think of any tower would you ever think of a name for a tower is The Willis Tower? Well, I wouldn't. "The Sears Tower" Posted by Payton from San Angelo, TX (Thu, Jan 21, 2010) In my eyes, the Sears Tower will always be the Sears Tower to me! "The Sears Tower" Posted by Payton from San Angelo, TX (Thu, Jan 21, 2010) In my eyes, the Sears Tower will always be the Sears Tower to me! "Sears Tower" Posted by Denny from Ft. Wayne Indiana (Sun, Jan 17, 2010) It will always be Sears Tower,,,,,Willis,,? want that guy and the Jeffersons? ""Renaming Rights" rebuttal" Posted by Cate from Fairfax Station,VA (Wed, Jan 13, 2010) Oh, and I take issue with Alan from Maryland who is so preoccupied with rights. This country will be in a better place when people concern themselves with doing what is actually right, rather than focusing on "rights". Maybe it is a legal right to rename something you own, but it is certainly the right thing in the grand scheme of things (outside ourselves) not to rename what amounts to a National Landmark. "Sears Tower" Posted by Cate from Fairfax Station, VA (Wed, Jan 13, 2010) A name is an association by which a thing is known. Renaming things like the Sears Tower is like renaming a . . .rose. Changing the name is changing the identity, which is offensive to the history of the structure as well as the individuals associated with its construction. "Renaming the Sears Tower" Posted by Debi from Las vegas, NV (Fri, Jan 8, 2010) I can't imagine how changing the name of the tower would improve the company's standing with the public, their customers or their investors. So other than ego boost, why change? It certainly carries more clout to be located in the Sears Tower than Joe Blows Tower... don't ya think? To say you are located in your own Company's name Tower only hints at the idea, you built a "tower" somewhere and named it for your company, however, being located in the Sears Tower, lets everyone know immediately, your company is located in a part of iconal history and deserves respect if only for their location. I really don't see the upside of changing the name. I can't say I am "against" the name chage, I just do not understand what will be gained by it. I do however, feel as though we'll miss having a Sears Tower if it;s chaged. I don't think anyone would be as excited about visiting a Willis Tower with same sense of awe and anticipation as the historical and unwaivering Sears Tower. Posted by Robbin Sickman from WIsconsin (Wed, Jan 6, 2010) I shop all the time at walmart, should they change the stroe name to my name! No, and they shouldnt change the sears towers name either. "Renaming rights" Posted by Alan from Maryland (Tue, Jan 5, 2010) Dear RK, Thanks for the response. I did not object to your exercising your right to free speech regarding the name change. I just object to any effort you might make to restrict the new owners' right to call his property whatever he wants. When I bought a new home I called it "Alan's House," and I pretty well thought I had the right to do so. I guess that if the house was over a certain size you would say that I do not have that right? That all my neighbors ought to have a vote and impose on me what they want to call my house? It would appear in this case that you do not appear to support individual ownership right, and feel that ad hominum attacks on the new owners are justified (e.g. "in the name of corporate greed"). I guess I just get irritated when some company does something that others don't care for and suddenly they are excoriated for "corporate greed." How, exactly, is advertising your name or product an example of "corporate greed?" The next time I see a car with a "Ford" or "Toyota" brand symbol, I should start up a web site and accuse them of "corporate greed?" I guess that I see corporate greed differently from you. When a company makes a profit it is because that have made a product that I have bought that makes my life better. I hope there are lots more greedy companies out there hoping to make products that I can buy to make my life even better than before. I guess the opposite to me of "corporate greed" is "corporate bankruptcy," and in those cases my taxes get paid out and I don't get anything back to make my life better. I suppose that I may be wrong and I am incorrect regarding what you expect out of this web site. Are you trying to force them to change the name back to what you prefer? And, since you now have rights to that name, perhaps make a little money from the change? Is there greed involved here, too? If that is wrong, please let me know, and I will apologize for the evil thought. Best regards, Alan "Renaming a building" Posted by Alan from Maryland (Tue, Jan 5, 2010) It appears that Mr. Krause opposes property rights. Someone buys a proporty and then is not allowed to re-name it because Mr. Krause and his crowd don't want the name to change? Mr. Krause does not explain on this web site exactly what gives him the right to anything regarding this building! I suspect he is contemplating legal action or getting the building designated as "historical" so that he can use the stick of government to enforce his personal preferences. Our Founding Fathers weep. Note from the editor: I own this Website and have the legal right to express my opinions regarding the name change just as the property owners have the legal right to rename the building notwithstanding my objections. Quid pro quo, sir. And government intervention is not welcome, so please do not imply such unspoken intentions. Thanks for your feedback. --RK "Former Skydeck Employee" Posted by Employee from Chicago (Mon, Jan 4, 2010) I use to work at the Sears Tower Skydeck. I put in over 7 years at that job. All the tourists, from all over the world, even if they did not speak English, could still utter the words, "Sears Tower". To me, it will ALWAYS be the Sears Tower. It was the Sears Tower since the day the tower was born and it should remain that. For the Willis company, it is an ego trip to have their small companies name on the tower. What a shame for the city of Chicago to allow this to happen. Where is the cities architectural & historical society? They should never have allowed this to happen. Note from the editor: Landmark status does not preclude renaming of a building. It only conveys a limited set of protections. --RK Displaying last 15 of 308 comments.

Please feel free to sign our guestbook. We appreciate hearing what you have to say about Sears Tower! If you have a news tip, simply email info@searstower.org .

Is it justifiable for Willis Group Holdings to "rebrand" America's tallest building in the name of corporate greed — even despite strong public resistence? Will this move garner more respect for their firm?

Don't forget to cast your vote in the poll!

(Post New Comment)
(View Latest Comments)

View Latest Comments

"You people don't know anything"
Posted by Mike from New York (Tue, Feb 9, 2010)

It's ridiculous how you people are pining over a company that trucked jobs out of Chicago 15 years ago to the suburbs. Sears built the Sears Tower way back when because they thought they would have an ever-expanding company with a growing need for office space. Well, Sears failed and moved all of their employees to another town. They haven't even occupied the building for 15 years! In New York, this happens all the time. The "Pan-AM" building is now the MetLife Building because Pan-Am went out of business. The Citicorp Center (the white building with the slanted roof that defines part of the skyline) is now just 601 Lexington. Why? CITIGROUP MOVED OUT. Plus, Citi sucks as a company just like Sears. So while all you people complain and sign petitions to keep the name of a failing company on the nation's largest building for no reason at all, just think of all the money United Airlines has to pay to put their name on the Bulls' stadium or how much US Cellular has to pay to the White Sox. If Sears was out saving jobs and helping the community, I could understand the backlash, however they are not and in Hoffman Estates going bankrupt. At least Willis is a good company that has jobs (yes, JOBS) for Chicagoans INSIDE THE BUILDING.

Note from the editor: Pan-Am Building and Citicorp Center are hardly in the same class of distinction as Sears Tower. Those are not nationally recognized attractions drawing millions of tourists per year. If anything, the Chrysler Building is a more proper comparison. And yet Chrysler never even occupied the very landmark tower that it commissioned. Furthermore, such a notable skyscraper would never be renamed because people associate "Chrysler Building" with the landmark tower that it has always represented, regardless of corporate affiliation. This is not about Sears, it is about "Sears Tower".

Posted by Marsha from Sabina, Ohio (Mon, Feb 8, 2010)

Leave the Sears Tower the 'Sears Tower', I want to take my granddaughter to the Sears Tower not the willis tower. Somebody somewhere just has to change the name of something & just screw-up the 'Tower's' history. Can't you idiots just leave well enough alone?????

"Sears Tower"
Posted by Samantha Maniago from Elgin, Illinois (Thu, Jan 28, 2010)

Calling the Sears Tower "Willis Tower" is dumb. It's like changing the grass's name to "rain."

"Awesome Information"
Posted by Samantha Maniago from Elgin, Illinois (Thu, Jan 28, 2010)

All of this information helped me a lot in my history fair! Thanks! (Well, I got it out of a book, but this website was in the book!)

"The SEARS Tower"
Posted by Payton from San Angelo, TX (Thu, Jan 21, 2010)

I agree with anyone who says that when you change the name of a national landmark all it does is just screw up history. When you think of any tower would you ever think of a name for a tower is The Willis Tower? Well, I wouldn't.

"The Sears Tower"
Posted by Payton from San Angelo, TX (Thu, Jan 21, 2010)

In my eyes, the Sears Tower will always be the Sears Tower to me!

"Sears Tower"
Posted by Denny from Ft. Wayne Indiana (Sun, Jan 17, 2010)

It will always be Sears Tower,,,,,Willis,,? want that guy and the Jeffersons?

""Renaming Rights" rebuttal"
Posted by Cate from Fairfax Station,VA (Wed, Jan 13, 2010)

Oh, and I take issue with Alan from Maryland who is so preoccupied with rights. This country will be in a better place when people concern themselves with doing what is actually right, rather than focusing on "rights". Maybe it is a legal right to rename something you own, but it is certainly the right thing in the grand scheme of things (outside ourselves) not to rename what amounts to a National Landmark.

"Sears Tower"
Posted by Cate from Fairfax Station, VA (Wed, Jan 13, 2010)

A name is an association by which a thing is known. Renaming things like the Sears Tower is like renaming a . . .rose. Changing the name is changing the identity, which is offensive to the history of the structure as well as the individuals associated with its construction.

"Renaming the Sears Tower"
Posted by Debi from Las vegas, NV (Fri, Jan 8, 2010)

I can't imagine how changing the name of the tower would improve the company's standing with the public, their customers or their investors. So other than ego boost, why change? It certainly carries more clout to be located in the Sears Tower than Joe Blows Tower... don't ya think? To say you are located in your own Company's name Tower only hints at the idea, you built a "tower" somewhere and named it for your company, however, being located in the Sears Tower, lets everyone know immediately, your company is located in a part of iconal history and deserves respect if only for their location. I really don't see the upside of changing the name. I can't say I am "against" the name chage, I just do not understand what will be gained by it. I do however, feel as though we'll miss having a Sears Tower if it;s chaged. I don't think anyone would be as excited about visiting a Willis Tower with same sense of awe and anticipation as the historical and unwaivering Sears Tower.

Posted by Robbin Sickman from WIsconsin (Wed, Jan 6, 2010)

I shop all the time at walmart, should they change the stroe name to my name! No, and they shouldnt change the sears towers name either.

"Renaming rights"
Posted by Alan from Maryland (Tue, Jan 5, 2010)

Dear RK, Thanks for the response. I did not object to your exercising your right to free speech regarding the name change. I just object to any effort you might make to restrict the new owners' right to call his property whatever he wants. When I bought a new home I called it "Alan's House," and I pretty well thought I had the right to do so. I guess that if the house was over a certain size you would say that I do not have that right? That all my neighbors ought to have a vote and impose on me what they want to call my house? It would appear in this case that you do not appear to support individual ownership right, and feel that ad hominum attacks on the new owners are justified (e.g. "in the name of corporate greed"). I guess I just get irritated when some company does something that others don't care for and suddenly they are excoriated for "corporate greed." How, exactly, is advertising your name or product an example of "corporate greed?" The next time I see a car with a "Ford" or "Toyota" brand symbol, I should start up a web site and accuse them of "corporate greed?" I guess that I see corporate greed differently from you. When a company makes a profit it is because that have made a product that I have bought that makes my life better. I hope there are lots more greedy companies out there hoping to make products that I can buy to make my life even better than before. I guess the opposite to me of "corporate greed" is "corporate bankruptcy," and in those cases my taxes get paid out and I don't get anything back to make my life better. I suppose that I may be wrong and I am incorrect regarding what you expect out of this web site. Are you trying to force them to change the name back to what you prefer? And, since you now have rights to that name, perhaps make a little money from the change? Is there greed involved here, too? If that is wrong, please let me know, and I will apologize for the evil thought. Best regards, Alan

"Renaming a building"
Posted by Alan from Maryland (Tue, Jan 5, 2010)

It appears that Mr. Krause opposes property rights. Someone buys a proporty and then is not allowed to re-name it because Mr. Krause and his crowd don't want the name to change? Mr. Krause does not explain on this web site exactly what gives him the right to **anything** regarding this building! I suspect he is contemplating legal action or getting the building designated as "historical" so that he can use the stick of government to enforce his personal preferences. Our Founding Fathers weep.

Note from the editor: I own this Website and have the legal right to express my opinions regarding the name change just as the property owners have the legal right to rename the building notwithstanding my objections. Quid pro quo, sir. And government intervention is not welcome, so please do not imply such unspoken intentions. Thanks for your feedback. --RK

"Former Skydeck Employee"
Posted by Employee from Chicago (Mon, Jan 4, 2010)

I use to work at the Sears Tower Skydeck. I put in over 7 years at that job. All the tourists, from all over the world, even if they did not speak English, could still utter the words, "Sears Tower". To me, it will ALWAYS be the Sears Tower. It was the Sears Tower since the day the tower was born and it should remain that. For the Willis company, it is an ego trip to have their small companies name on the tower. What a shame for the city of Chicago to allow this to happen. Where is the cities architectural & historical society? They should never have allowed this to happen.

Note from the editor: Landmark status does not preclude renaming of a building. It only conveys a limited set of protections. --RK

Displaying last 15 of 308 comments.