Is it time to consider re-naming the Chrysler Building?
In 1991, the building which was for 28 years was commonly referred to as The Pan Am Building was renamed The MetLife Building. Why? Because Pan American World Airlines went out of business and the company which, ironically enough, had owned the building for the last 10 years, decided to give it the appropriate namesake.
Now that Chrysler is getting help from the Government for the second time in 30 years, Americans should be asking themselves this question:
Should Chrysler, with its continuously embarrassing financial issues, be nominally honored by one New York City’s most beautiful skyscrapers?
Yes, fans of the musical Annie may be dismayed that the relevance of Ms. Hannigan’s edicts to her orphans may be lost along with other historical references, but such is life.
Yes, Chrysler has been a backbone of the American economy and has employed many, many Americans. However, over the years Chrysler has also been part-owned by (and has outsourced jobs to) The Germans, The French, The Italians, The British, The Spanish, The Australians, The Japanese, and The Indians (through its various ownership/partnership deals).
Other companies that can’t manage themselves have to give up naming rights to their baseball stadiums and concert venues.
Why can’t we hold Chrysler, to whom we have grudgingly contributed billions of our hard-earned tax dollars, to the same standard?
Instead of Chrysler, why can’t we honor a company that is both well-managed and fundamentally loyal to hard-working Americans by whose hands it was built?
Maybe it’s because the Chrysler Building is now owned by The Abu Dhabi Investment Council, and in this world of Post 9-11 Xenophobia, having a skyscraper named The Abud Dhabi building in the middle of New York City is just inappropriate.