The Barclay Arena [MERGED TOPIC]

Well, the corelation between purchasing naming rights on a stadium and then 1) going belly-up or 2) being purchased by another is pretty high from what I can remember.

It could be worse. We could be hosting CitiField (which is the dumbest name I've ever heard)

I love how Atlantic Yards opponents are heavily criticizing Barclays for its connection to apartheid, yet shrug their shoulders at Charles Barron's apologist attitude towards Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe. I guess that human rights violations in Africa are noteworthy only when the offender is a Ratner supporter.

CitiField.
Think of a synonym for "crappy" that rhymes with "Citi", one that truly does reek.
There's the main reason.
It's like calling the Mets the "Mutts" or the Yankees the "Crankees" or the "Jankees". Not to say the New York ------bockers. Kids of all ages do it.

Funny, this was my first thought:

MichaelKeys wrote: Anyone want to take bets on how long before Broadway becomes Morgan Stanley Ave or 42nd is re-named Pfizer St?

Er, hate to break it to you but the area around 42nd St is called Times Square, which is named after the New York Times Company.

Call me ridiculous and laugh at me now

done.

As far as CitiField, I guess it's a matter of personal opinion. I wasn't bothered by the rhyme--do you giggle every time you hear the words New York City (hehe, sounds like New York shitty), or think they should change the name of a hockey puck? I actually like CitiField because it's relatively subtle--much like Times Square it doesn't drip with obvious corporate branding and can be forgotten. It seems far more fitting for a New York team and for a stadium in general than such awkward tongue twisters as American Airlines Arena, Minute Maid Park, US Cellular Arena, Comerica Park, etc. For the same reason, I think the Staples Center is one of the better names out there too, and of course there's Wrigley Field, a truly classic ballpark and one whose name most people forget is associated with the company.

I hate the name CitiField because when you have a capital letter following a prefix, or two words stuck together retaining the capitalization of the second, it screams corporate/product. MasterCard, iPod, AppleCare ... "CitiField" has the same form as CitiBusiness, CitiGold, etc., which makes it look like another Citibank service. Ugh.

Laura, fair enough on the whole space and lower case thing; but I suspect that, like Wrigley Field, this name will work in the long run. Just my opinion.

Michaelkeys, baseball stadiums aren't public spaces, so why single them out for anti-advertising criticism but not TV shows, websites, or any of the many other places that serve as marketing venues? I mean, why not rail against Google, which essentially is a company whose sole purpose is to facilitate advertising? If you want to make the argument that we're being overwhelmed by advertising, I personally think it's more appropriate to start with public spaces than with private ones, no?

Also, I am a Mets fan and I know several other Mets fans who like the name quite a bit (including some raging liberal anti-corporate types), so there you have it.

escap wrote: But out of curiosity, how do you feel about branding public or private spaces after non-corporate donors? Are you opposed to Rockefeller Center, the Tisch School of the Arts, the Henry Kravis wing of the Met, or any of the millions of other examples along those lines? Do you think that TV commercials should be replaced with 30 second segments honoring prominent historical figures? Just curious what the standard is here.

My personal feeling, since you are asking, is that it's lame, all those buildings named Tisch. Rockefeller Center makes sense, since it is a cathedral to capital. But 30 second segments honoring prominent historical figures sounds like a great idea. After all, the broadcast frequencies are publicly owned, and the television stations used to feel honored to serve the public.

Hey, you asked. But I'm a guy who would rather sit around playing Bach than watching TV.

escap wrote: My apologies for continuing to rant about this, but once I get started I'm like a train wreck.... :?

But out of curiosity, how do you feel about branding public or private spaces after non-corporate donors? Are you opposed to Rockefeller Center, the Tisch School of the Arts, the Henry Kravis wing of the Met, or any of the millions of other examples along those lines? Do you think that TV commercials should be replaced with 30 second segments honoring prominent historical figures? Just curious what the standard is here.

(If Michaelkeys is fed up and refuses to take any more part in this discussion, can another anti-corporate-advertising member please answer in his place?)

I should be in bed but you've baited me, escap.

The answer to your question is...I need to think about it. Sorry.

But off the top of my head I can say that no, I don't "think that TV commercials should be replaced with 30 second segments honoring prominent historical figures", commercials are a necessary evil of that kind of programming and there's a place for "honoring prominent historical figures" elsewhere. It sure wouldn't hurt to see a little more of that on regular TV programming, but I digress.

My sleep deprived brain would also like me to state that individual or family donations that make possible a school, park or hospital to continue operating and are recognized by adding the donor name to the masthead don't bother me. But I doubt that as a profitable enterprise on its own, the Mets needed Citibank's money to keep the team in the black, for instance. (Or to offer their fans more for their bucks.)

More than anything I find it tacky. It's one of the reasons that I have avoided performing in situations w/corporate sponsorship. ("Barleycorn beer presents Michael Keys: Live!") And when it has been inevitable--the promoter has made a deal we were not informed of, for instance--I've made an effort keep it away from the stage. Elsewhere in the venue, fine. I'll live. And as you can imagine, I cringe when a favorite song by a rich artist who doesn't need the money pops up in a commercial.

On this particular subject, Tom Petty once said he would never place one of his songs in advertising...unless he didn't have the money to pay for an operation for one of his daughters. (Which is why The Minutemen had a song of theirs in a Toyota ad: D. Boon's dad needed the cash for an operation. A-OK in my book.) Call me old-fashioned, but I respect Petty's stance for a myriad of reasons I won't bore you or anyone else here with.

Just to give you an idea of where I stand...off to bed now...zzzzzzzzz

escap wrote: Michaelkeys, baseball stadiums aren't public spaces, so why single them out for anti-advertising criticism but not TV shows, websites, or any of the many other places that serve as marketing venues?

Actually, both the Mets and Yankees floated tax-exempt bonds through the NYC IDA to pay for a portion of the improvements to the stadium so indirectly all of us are paying for a small portion of this stadium.

Raulism, that's just crazy, but extra kudos for at least being consistent!

Michaelkeys, I actually wholly agree with you--corporate naming is tacky. I don't think it should be banned or anything like that, as it serves a very practical purpose and anyway is an agreement between two private parties, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Like I said above, I think the ones that work are the ones that are unassuming and in time are largely forgotten as marketing stunts and embraced as part of the history of the city (Times & Herald squares, Rockefeller Center, Wrigley Field, etc.).

Homeowner, public funds are used to support all private development, from the cost of infrastructure and sewage upgrades to the cost of providing police and fire services. And just because you qualify for a tax break does not mean the govt has a legal claim of ownership on your property. Though I haven't seen the property title, I believe the stadium is in fact privately owned. (However, if the city does in fact have partial ownership then I humbly apologize and concede this point to you.)

I actually think it is tackier to name a hospital/museum/school etc... for oneself (i.e. Tisch School, Rockefeller Center etc...) then it is for a corporation to do it. Sure when it is an old name it doesnt seem as such but imagine if one of your good friends end up making a fortune and then went around donating/naming things for themselves, my god thats about as tacky as it gets - charity or not! (if your dead and being honored it is a different story).

That being said the attempt to link AY to Slavery, Aparteid and the Holocaust is the latest in a long line of inconsistent and desperate positions taken up by the Anti crowd and the Brooklyn Papers

I'd love it if we were more conscious of our history and named places after worthwhile, contributing individuals who did not run multinational corporations or possess massive fortunes.

Each time a megalomaniac comes along and plops his name on YET ANOTHER stadium, hospital, museum, or school building, or each time a corporation comes along and decides that said building is just a big-ass billboard, it saddens me a little bit more.

The flip side is, if you start honoring contributing individuals, you have to get selective. You have to honor some but leave others out. The honorees may not be all that worthy in a lot of people's opinion (Major Deegan, anyone?). Bias intrudes. But that's a lot better than the alternative.

escap wrote: As a bit of trivia on the side, just be happy we're not in Japan, where the names of the teams themselves are corporate. The Tokyo Giants are actually the Yomiuri Giants (named after the newspaper), then there's the Hanshin Tigers, the Nippon Ham Fighters, Seibu Lions, Orix Blue Wave, etc., all named after corporations. It would be like having the General Motors Pistons play against the Coca Cola Hawks. Now that would actually be something I could get upset about.

My favorite Japanese Baseball team is the Central Dragons, and their logo looks like the Dodgers.

raulism wrote: [quote=Jack Krohn]I love how Atlantic Yards opponents are heavily criticizing Barclays for its connection to apartheid, yet shrug their shoulders at Charles Barron's apologist attitude towards Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe. I guess that human rights violations in Africa are noteworthy only when the offender is a Ratner supporter.

Charles Barron is a complete ass for supporting Mugabe in any way for any reason. Barron can be independent and brave, but that does not excuse being an apologist for a dictator.

Okay, I will be consistent in criticizing Barron for making nice with Mugabe. But I will also demand consistency for Ratner supporters. If you want to bring up the fact that Barron is an apologist for a hateful dictator, then to claim any sort of credibility, you have to acknowledge that Barclays FUNDS the same dictator. Here is an article from yesterday's Guardian (January 28, 2007) titled "Barclays' millions help to prop up Mugabe regime":

Guardian.co.uk wrote: Barclays bank is helping to bankroll President Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe, providing millions of pounds of support for his vilified land reforms, The Observer can reveal. Mugabe's opponents describe the bank's activities as a 'disgrace' and an 'insult' to the millions who have suffered human rights abuses.

Any comment, Jack Krohn? Or are human rights violations in Africa are noteworthy only when the offender is a Ratner opponent?