If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.
Of late, the naming of our project on 27th and V Street in Midtown has been on my mind. Up until now, we’ve been simply calling it, “Newton Booth” However, we were never sure if that name would stick or not. And not having a “settled” name is a bit unsettling for me.
I’m probably in the minority here, but I think the naming of a project is an interesting and important consideration. Of course, I tend to get caught up with anything linguistic, which probably isn’t a surprise for any of our regular readers. For me, language defines so much of our interpretation of the world we live in: its powerful stuff and not to be taken or used lightly. It’s the blueprint and architecture of our minds. That said, here’s some of my random thoughts on project christenings:
Word Fluff
I’ve noticed a trend among a lot of projects of late that try to use the name to “project” (no pun intended) an image or feeling or “personality” for the project. Somehow, this just comes across as hokey and inauthentic and, in my opinion, runs the risk of becoming labeled as “dated” and “trendy.” Its like those “What’s Hot” and “What’s Not” lists that every magazine seems to put out annually. This years’ “Hot” words seem to be “abstract words” designed to do nothing more than “evoke.” Its “word fluff” whose only value is for marketing purposes. Like the project itself, the name will last a long time and, accordingly, should have some substance to it.
Names of Substance
What then, gives a name substance? I don’t claim to have this entirely figured out, but here’s my leading thought (I’m open to suggestions and would love some examples, positive and negative). What gives the name substance is the depth of its concrete, authentic relationship with the community or the project itself.
Sometimes, this relationship is focused on the surrounding community or history or natural resources; in these cases, its important to note that authentic relationship is important here. We’ve all seen developments that have some “nature-type” description that references the beautiful setting that used to be in the location without really folding that history/community/natural resource into the existing development. I call that base exploitation. If you had to cut down all the old oak trees to build the project, don’t add insult to injury by naming the project “The Oaks” and planting a few measly scrub oaks in the meridians. I think the best examples of this type of naming done well come from projects that take an old, well known building and convert it into a different use. The Crystal Ice and Globe Mills conversion projects shouldn’t wander too far from their original names, in my opinion.
Other times, the relationship isn’t based on “reference” or “association” with the community/history/natural setting but on its interaction with the rest of the built environment. Under this rubric fall names that relate with streets or well-known areas that everyone recognizes. By naming the project according to this relationship, people know exactly where it is and how to get there, which makes it more accessible and more relevant to the city at large. Done well, the project and its name cultivates a measure of civic “pride.” The 18th Street Lofts would be a classic example as well as our own B Street West project. Of course, this can be overdone as well and become boring, depending on how much of this type of naming has already occurred in the given area.
Other times, the relationship is purely with the project itself: the name is self-evident just by looking at the project. I good example of this is Denver’s Glasshouse project. You don’t look at the building and wonder “why that name?” This kind of name works if the project has stand-alone merit and adds value to the community simply for its beauty/innovation, etc.
Names of ByGone Years
Interestingly, we don’t see projects that take on the name of the builder or developer. Buildings like this can be found in every major metropolitan city whose history extends to the early 20th century. And I wonder if their absence is due to the fact that, by and large, the industry has lost sight of the concept of building structures whose value as a source of civic pride and community enhancement will endure and stand the test of time. Amazing as this sounds, buildings used to have this quality and were celebrated by all citizens. Not now. Many (if not most) development happens without the average citizen knowing really who the developer is. Because, it comes down to this: if you put your name on a building, you are forever judged according to this measure. Mistakes or failures fall on “abstracted” entities and accountability falls by the wayside. This is the danger of development that happens outside the scope of community interests.
Your Chance to Name
So, my idea is this…let’s collectively think about the names of our projects. B Street West was nailed down before we had our blog, but Newton Booth is still undecided. Recently, someone in the neighborhood suggested Newton Booth Corners, which seemed to hit a resonate note. Are there other names we should be considering? Or is Newton Booth or Newton Booth Corners the one?
Jason
5 responses so far ↓
1 Levi // Nov 26, 2006 at 4:36 pm
How about Booth Corners?
Speaks to the Newton Booth area and is a little more edgy being short…..
2 E // Nov 27, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Naming is fascinating to me, because people in the planning/development circles rely on names nowadays to distinguish one application or project from another, but once constructed, names seem to change and/or disappear so randomly and at the whims of those who own it or change the product later on. There seems to be no permanence to places anymore anyways, which I guess is why the names that developers in many contexts come up with are so bad and banal that they’re pretty much a joke, i.e. the “oaks” example.
Naming a project seems to be a temporary label or “branding” more for the purposes of marketing and/or selling the idea to the neighborhood, the approving body, and other decisionmakers. I don’t say this to discard the importance and the need for a name among those engaged in this activity — it’s part of the development process and necessary for its own reasons. However, with the exception of some major buildings or extraordinarily unique projects, most people in urban infill areas who end up living in or occupying projects that actually get constructed often don’t know or care much what the project was named during its formative planning/design stages. They may for a short time, but after ownership is transferred and the development process stretches further away from collective memory, the names fade. For example - I don’t have much of an idea what the original name of the subdivision or plat that my house is located in. I could look it up I suppose, but it’s well over 100 years old and I’m sure there was significance at the time, probably the name of some rich speculator/developer. But no one knows or cares much now — it’s an established neighborhood. Infill development now, in the 21st century, operates in a very different context — there is so much political importance attached to things like names and branding. Maybe there was back then, too… hard to say.
I can see that putting your name permanently on a building somehow would certainly up the ante — you’d better build a darn good building or set of buildings! I used to live in NYC and saw a lot of old buildings with names etched overhead in beautifully carved stone entrances - yes, these are the kinds of buildings that (most of the time) made you step back and say, wow, that building really has character, and whoever put their name up there stood behind what they did.
I guess, having read back over my comments here, that I’m not much of a help! More of a cynic, I guess, about names. I do see your point though Jason and all I can say is — good luck — and I mean that in the most positive way, because of what you’re doing and the role that a name plays, whether it’s temporary or permanent.
3 Ian // Nov 27, 2006 at 11:06 pm
I’m sure the architect has a naming contest going on in their office right now. Expect to get billed for the brainstorming process, billed with money that could have been used for better finishes for the building.
A so-called timeless name could never be so. It insults the meaning of the project. The name should be reflective of the current tenants for their current purpose. People give nicknames to buildings with distinguishing features. Everyone knows the “Ban roll-on” building downtown. If the front of the building has a fake craftsman look and the back is sleek and modern, you could call the project “sexy back.” There is concern over the air quality effects of living near a freeway. You could call the project “gas mask lofts.”
Think about what makes the project visually distinct. If it truly responds to the freeway, corners have nothing to do with the building. Can you imagine making a 90-degree turn while driving 70 miles per hour? A freeway is about flow, it is an engineered machine meant to swiftly and efficiently convey people and products into and out of a city.
Despite the rants and raves of neighborhood committees, we truly know that historic preservation of a neighborhood means designing new buildings that celebrate being new and respect their elder neighbors. A building named after a neighborhood that it is trying to change should not pretend that it is just another part of the neighborhood. New infill building types are catalysts- and not quiet ones at that. They encourage smart growth by attracting many kinds of people with new ideas that will hopefully cause upheaval to the status quo.
Follow your instincts. Don’t be swayed by the influence of a bank, a few nosy neighbors, and especially not an architect.
4 zach // Nov 28, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Well, I think you might want to avoid some of Ian’s suggestions if you want to earn the respect of the neighborhood and if you plan on actually selling some homes. Though i do agree that sometimes you should go with instinct rather than an overboiled decision by committee.
I thought i’d share this story the News & Review did on an old-time Sacramento couple remembering the way things came about. I actually found it by searching out the origins of my neighborhood’s name, Homeland, which is more commonly called Old Land Park.
Names tell stories: Neighborhoods recreate Sacramento’s history
5 jason // Nov 29, 2006 at 3:43 pm
zach: thanks for the link, its a fun read.
ian: no naming contests that I know of but thanks for the heads up…regarding building nicknames, yeah, that’s an interesting phenomenon, just one of many expressions of the democratic voice. if ours gets nicknamed, let’s hope we can avoid a negative one…
e: your comments gave me much to think about. the impermanence of names you allude to strikes at the very heart of the issue. will the homebuyers/community really even care what the name of the project is, as long as its not completely lame? to some degree, finding a name of “substance” flies in the face of our over-branded culture, where words are stripped down to their economic value. its marketing vs. philosophy (or perhaps philology) stuff. then again, i could well be over-analysing all this.
of some comfort is the fact that the name holds far less impact than the actual project itself.
that said, i appreciate the encouragement, especially to “follow our instincts.”
Leave a Comment