On Naming Public Buildings

The renaming Calhoun College incident got me thinking about something that has troubled me for years:  naming things for politicians.  The thing might be a building, it might be an airport, it might be a bridge or a highway or an intersection, or really just about anything.

In the private sector, things are named for a substantial donor.  Colleges are especially prone to sell naming rights and it can get a little goofy.  For instance, naming a room within a named wing of a named building, which is part of a named complex.  And then of course, the piano or books in the room might have been donated and have a commemorative label.  Enough already.  (Disclaimer:  I have never donated enough to have a room or building named after me, but there are a couple of bricks somewhere indicating that my family donated to this or that project.)

I understand the business of naming rights.  It is at its core a bargained-for transaction.  I may not always agree about the economics,[1] but fundamentally it is a commercial transaction.  Even so, everything we name for a person, family, or company should have a sunset provision.  The naming rights should lapse.  Professional sports teams figured this out with naming rights to their stadiums.  It’s time for the public sector to get on board.  Naming rights should be an ongoing income stream, not a one-time windfall.

The Lincoln Center has also figured this out.  They received a substantial donation ($57 million in today’s dollars) and renamed the former Philharmonic Hall the Avery Fisher Hall.  Years later the center considered changing the name of Avery Fisher Hall to accommodate a new donor, but didn’t make a change after the Fisher family threatened to sue.  The need for money, however, did not diminish.  The hall is now named David Geffen Hall, after he donated $100 million,[2] $15 million of which went to the Fisher family in appreciation for their connivance in the name change.  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/arts/music/lincoln-center-to-rename-avery-fisher-hall.html?_r=0

Money talks.  So does history.  There is nothing inappropriate about honoring in perpetuity a person like George Washington, who was our first president and the General of the Army that won the American Revolutionary War.  At the same time, there is no reason to honor in perpetuity a person who might already be little remembered.  I’m thinking here of various state buildings in Ohio, named for James Rhodes, Vern Riffe, and Thomas Moyer.  I do not question whether they are due some honor, only whether we should confer it forever.  Worse yet, we sometimes name buildings for people who subsequently prove themselves unworthy of the honor.  This happened at Ohio State, where a hotel is named for Roger Blackwell, who was jailed for insider trading infractions.  (To be clear, The Blackwell was named in large part based on a sizable donation.)

Significant public buildings should be named for the institution they house, not an elected official who worked there (or somewhere else) temporarily.  Among the four largest public buildings in downtown Columbus are the Vern Riffe State Office Tower, the Franklin County Court House, the Rhodes Office Tower, and the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center.  Only one of these buildings is appropriately named.  Hint:  it’s the one not named for a person.  Public buildings should be named for their historical or current use, not for some elected official.

If political friends insist on naming a building after a politician, which they will, we should require the name to lapse.  After ten years or twenty or fifty, the name should void and the proper authorities can rename it.  Perhaps they will honor a different worthy person, perhaps they will reward the highest bidder.  Perhaps in fifty years the people of Ohio will still consider Riffe or Rhodes or Moyer worth honoring with a named building.  But I doubt it.  By then there will be someone else worthy of the honor, not necessarily more worthy, but more immediate.

Let’s be fair, even now, when Ohio is full of people who knew them, it might be difficult to find someone who could tell you why any of these three men has a building named for him.  Doing something extraordinary, like winning the Revolutionary War or writing the Declaration of Independence, is worthy of forever, being the longest-serving speaker in the history of the Ohio House of Representatives is worthy of something, but not forever.  Wasn’t he just doing the job we elected him to do?  Didn’t we pay him for his public service?

Obviously, I don’t think a person must have written the Declaration of Independence to have a building named after him or her.  Cities and towns should appropriately honor their favorite sons and daughters.  But significant public buildings, for instance the one housing the Supreme Court of Ohio, should never have a name attached.  They stand on their own as the home of a grand institution.

Naming rights should be to honor a substantial donor or achievement.  Significant public buildings should have their own name and should never be named after an individual.  And all naming rights should have sunset provisions unless the name becomes part of the vernacular and a change would cause undue confusion.

[1] The $100 million that Lesley Wexner donated to Ohio State for the naming rights to its medical center is without a doubt a considerable sum.  But it seems like a relative bargain given the exposure the name receives.

[2] For comparison purposes, Geffen’s donation was the same as Wexner’s.  Geffen’s received naming rights to a hall within a center, not an entire medical center.  The annual revenues of the Lincoln center are something around $125 million, about 4% of the Wexner Medical Center’s revenues.  I’m using revenues as a proxy for exposure.  Not that we rate such things, but this is a clear win for Wexner vis-à-vis Geffen.  Alternatively, it is a clear win for the Lincoln Center vis-à-vis OSU.