News   Jul 30, 2024
 946     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 1.6K     4 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 652     0 

Waterfront Toronto considers selling naming rights

Colin

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Waterfront Toronto Considers Selling Naming Rights
Sunday April 6, 2008
By Keith Leslie, The Canadian Press

Canadians have become accustomed to corporate sponsorship of buildings, the branding of sports stadiums and even the renaming of movie theatres after banks, but now there's a push to expand the name game to public spaces -- including Toronto's Lake Ontario waterfront.

Waterfront Toronto -- a joint agency of the federal, provincial and municipal governments with a 25-year mandate to implement a $17-billion revitalization program -- is looking for a consulting firm to help develop a sponsorship program and naming rights strategy.

With only $1.5 billion in seed capital from the various levels of government, Waterfront Toronto's mandate requires it find ways to pay for the massive revitalization project and to maintain new parks and other facilities, said vice-president of government relations Marisa Piattelli.

"It is incumbent upon the organization to look at fiscal sustainability for the project over the long term, and that's above and beyond development sales from lands and that kind of thing," Piattelli said in an interview.

"We have been thinking about doing a property inventory of our assets, looking at other great waterfronts internationally, and how they have leveraged non-governmental sources as revenues for the project."

Piattelli said naming rights are just one of many strategies Waterfront Toronto would consider as it looks for revenue sources, adding there would be public input both directly from the community and through the three levels of government.

"You're going to need a lot of people being completely comfortable with the approach, and we are going to have to develop a case for whatever the rationale is in terms of how to do this," she said.

Lawrence Solomon of the Urban Renaissance Institute said it's hard to know where to draw the line when corporate sponsorship moves into public buildings and spaces, and suggested people may not be prepared to tolerate, for example, an Enron Courthouse or Loblaw's City Hall.

Citizens must decide if they want the revenue from corporate sponsorships and naming rights that might prevent local tax hikes, said Solomon.

"I don't think this should be a decision for governments," he said. "I think it's something that should go to a referendum, and let citizens within municipalities decide what their comfort level is."

Ontario Public Infrastructure Minister David Caplan noted the proposal was in its very early stages, but said corporate sponsorship had helped Chicago revitalize its waterfront and the construction of the "world renowned" Millennium Park.

"We don't have a lot of experience with it, so I think it's prudent to take a look at it, to gauge where it would be applicable, what the ground rules would be, is there an appetite for it," said Caplan.

"I think Waterfront Toronto is moving forward in a cautious and exploratory manner, and I certainly support that."

Toronto Progressive Conservative Peter Shurman said he thought it was "a great idea," pointing out that many public hospitals have wings named after large benefactors.

"Why not give these opportunities to organizations that want to publicize themselves by being benefactors and put the money in the public purse," he said.

But the Ontario New Democrats strongly disagree with Waterfront Toronto's plan to look for a new naming rights strategy and corporate sponsorship program.

"I think what this represents is the corporatization of what is public space. It would be better if companies just paid their taxes," said NDP Leader Howard Hampton.

"I think it's dangerous to have all your public spaces suddenly owned, or named, or monikered by private corporations. It plays into the whole idea that everything is for sale. I think we ought to show greater care and greater consideration of our public spaces."

wow, you know your desprite when...
 
To Peter Shurman:

No, it does not compare to naming hospital wings after financial donors.

The Andrae Griffith wing of Hospital X is still part of Hospital X

The Sony Centre completely erases the old name for the building.
 
Im looking forward to our new waterfront! Rogers Beach, Rogers Quay, Rogers HtO (Maybe scrap the HtO from the name completely?), Rogers Pier, Rogers Islands.
 
Waterfront Toronto, Presented by Rogersâ„¢

Selling naming rights of our public spaces shouldn't be a consideration. The public will vote it down. At least, I hope we will.
 
Rogers Park at the Scotiabank Waterfront presented by Direct Energy.

Millennium Park may have been funded by private contributions, but it's not LaSalleBank Park with the Menard's Home Improvement fountain and the Jewel Food Stores bandshell. I've been there, and it's barely noticable, the corporate stuff, not like the overload companies here like Scotiabank get.

Corporate sponsorship is fine, in a way, as long as it isn't brand overload. A plaque and a presence at the ribbon cutting should be enough. (SB at Nuit Blanche was on the edge of being nausating pushing the Scene cards on everybody and having their banners everywhere). But shouldn't WaterfrontToronto be making its money from real estate, rents and that sort of thing to fund the public spaces?
 
I don't mind naming rights to parts of a park, like the Scotiabank Boardwalk at Sugar Beach or something, but the whole park should never have a corporate sponsor attached to it.

btw - i think this is better suited for Toronto Issues.
 
There is some merit to the idea, like sporting fields or structures and pavillions.

"It would be better if companies just paid their taxes," said NDP Leader Howard Hampton.

What narrowmindedness.
 
I don't really see a problem with smaller parts of parks being sponsored by businesses. The zoo has plenty of examples from the Zellers Splashpad, to Esso's Siberian Tiger exhibit. If it's a choice of having a half assed exhibit w/ no sponsorship to one that is kick ass w/ some branding then I don't see a problem. I have more of an issue with an entire park's name being sold, but if it's a pavillion or trail, I think there can be some compromise.

The Sony Centre completely erases the old name for the building.
Hummingbird is a software company that got taken over by Open Text. They were more ahead of their time (at least for hi-tech companies) to take on naming rights so no one really noticed that it was straight up corporate branding.
 
The selling off public land, development fees, and property taxes levied on land which becomes much more valuable should pay for the redevelopment. Something is wrong with the way you are looking at revenue streams if the investment in the waterfront isn't paying itself off without corporate branding. Look at the development of CityPlace... at no cost to the city there will be roads constructed, land leveled, bridge built, and park built. I think they should only do branding for arts and sports, not general infrastructure and parks.
 
Chicago's waterfront has some famous buildings named after "corporate sponsors", though it may not be obvious at first... Field Museum and Shedd Aquarium. Another nice Chicago example of a building with a historic "corporate name" attached to it is Wrigley Field, a name that many baseball fans are trying to preserve.

I think the reason that these names don't sound as obtrusive as what we have at places like Rogers Centre (SkyDome), the ACC or BMO Field is because only the name is attached to the building, not the corporate logo or the corporate font. I won't be 100% happy with that kind of renaming, but at least it's better than having corporations plaster their logos all over the waterfront.
 

Back
Top