Salesforce v the City of London: skyscraper naming etiquette

Sports stadiums, road bridges, bicycle hire schemes, cable cars: it is increasingly common to find companies' names attached to almost any type of infrastructure and property. But there is one type of building where corporate naming rights can be particularly controversial - skyscrapers.

When one of the world's largest internet companies was prevented from naming a City of London tower after itself this year, it was just the latest in a series of battles between urban planners and the companies that fuel their local economies.

Moreover, this friction is only likely to increase as the digital economy produces larger businesses with a disruptive mindset.

Salesforce, a San Francisco-based cloud computing company, was refused permission to rename the Square Mile's Heron Tower as the Salesforce Tower on the grounds that it was only a minority occupier, having taken just 73,000 sq ft of the building's 440,000 sq ft of space.

Agents acting for Salesforce called the move by the City of London Corporation, the area's governing body, "snobbery", while the Corporation hit back that the naming attempt was "just a bit of advertising".

Some of the most famous buildings have long been known by the names of the companies that built or rented them. But while the Square Mile has the tightest planning rules of any major business district, the sensitivity is not confined to London.

The issue has also arisen in the US, where in 2009 Sears surrendered the naming rights to its eponymous Chicago tower. Insurer Willis renamed the building after itself as part of a deal in which it rented just three floors of the 108-storey building. The move provoked an outcry: 50,000 local residents signed a petition to try and stop the building being renamed. They were unsuccessful.

Like many other business districts, London's second financial neighbourhood, Canary Wharf, permits both corporate building names and external neon-lit signs. But the Square Mile has always resisted.

Buildings may be named after a company only if it owns it or is the lead occupier - examples include the NatWest Tower (the original City skyscraper, now known as Tower 42), and the Gherkin, first known as the Swiss Re Building. Even then, those are usually nicknames not official addresses.

"Traditionally in London buildings have not been named after occupiers whereas in the States they're almost always named after occupiers," says Peter Rees, former City of London planning officer and now a professor at University College London.

When Salesforce moved into the City of London's Heron Tower this year, the City Corporation's planning department faced a problem. Salesforce wanted to buy the naming rights to the building and to display its logo, but the Corporation lacked clear rules on how much space a company should take up before being allowed to do this.

"We have a 'no ads' policy in the City that has produced a very specific environment," says Michael Welbank, planning committee chairman at the City of London Corporation. "We prefer buildings to be named after the owner or the geographical location. Developers regard that as part of the character of the City."

Although many City buildings have taken on company names, none have been minority occupants, Mr Welbank says: "What we found difficult with Salesforce is that they were not the owner of the building. It was just a bit of advertising."

After much deliberation a compromise was reached: the building was renamed 110 Bishopsgate, removing the reference to developer the Heron Corporation. Salesforce and other tenants can informally call it the Salesforce Tower, and the landlord can install a Salesforce sign inside the lobby - but not outside.

This outcome, Mr Welbank felt, was a suitable resolution that clarified its policy for multi-tenanted offices. Not everybody sees it this way, however. Chris Vydra, head of City leasing at property agent CBRE, who acted for landlord the Heron Corporation, calls the result "snobbery".

"It's old City versus new City," he complains. "The building was called after a company, albeit an owner, in the first place so what's the difference? The City is a growing, changing, diverse place, always reinventing itself, and this is just another little bit of that."

The key, Mr Vydra thinks, is in the type of company that is letting the space. "The tech companies [in the building] mostly think it's a good thing that the building is named after one of the largest tech companies in the world rather than a property developer or a bank or another symbol of the old economy."

The City of London Corporation insists that tech companies and other digital disrupters are welcome if they play by the same rules as everyone else.

"There's this view that we're an old boys' club, a load of pompous fat cats and the corporation is run on a river of claret," Mr Welbank says. "But the mix of businesses in the City is changing so much, particularly with the City fringe tech economy, and they are all part of the City. We're happy to welcome these new tech businesses."

Far from being an isolated incident, property agents and planners predict more tussles as fast-growing tech companies become an increasingly important part of the global economy.

Business districts around the world must grapple with the arrival of digital economy businesses that deliberately seek controversy, according to Dan Harvey, the California-based vice-chairman of occupier services at property adviser Cushman & Wakefield.

He deals with the world's biggest tech tenants. "Many are very virtual, in the cloud, in cyberland. Real estate is one of the few places where there's a bricks and mortar connection with their corporate culture."

Naming rights are, therefore, a key battleground between old and new, Mr Harvey says: "It's a manifestation of corporate culture and disruption and a way to say to people, 'I'm here, deal with me, I'm not waiting for permission'."

Further reading: The mayor and the 'Donald'

Donald Trump is infamous for naming buildings after himself. "It's a branding thing," he told the New York Times in 1999 when he renamed the GM Building the "General Motors Building at Trump International Plaza". He boasted: "I can get more rent per square foot, solely and simply because of the Trump name."

But the self-promoting property developer and his team recently encountered resistance in Chicago when they erected a neon sign on one of the city's skyscrapers. Rahm Emanuel, the city's mayor, called the sign "awful" and "in very poor taste".

Mr Emanuel is tightening Chicago's planning rules in an attempt to prevent a repeat, specifying that buildings' signs should not "have a negative impact on the area" or "create visual clutter".

But to Mr Trump's glee, permission for his sign has not been revoked. On the contrary, the tighter rules restricting future signage on other buildings will make his neon display "iconic", he reckons.

The ubiquity of corporate skyscraper naming in the US creates another problem, according to Peter Rees, former City of London planning officer and now a professor at University College London: what happens when the occupier changes?

That was highlighted this autumn when it was announced that New York landmark the GE Building at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, which gave its name to the Tina Fey television sitcom 30 Rock, was to be renamed after NBC's new owner Comcast.

© The Financial Times Limited 2014. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation