Toronto The Bentway (was Under Gardiner) | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[PinkLucy]

I kind of like Fat Panda.

Maybe they should just give up on these ridiculous naming contests.

 

[Tulse]

Do you know how hard it is to get twelve people to arrive at consensus?

Which is exactly why such process almost never produces an original and inspiring name.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Ok that list is bad but chances are those are amongst the worst choices and they are just posting them so that the boring choices they came up with don't seem so bad. Not for a moment do I believe that there were not decent suggestions as well.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I kind of like Fat Panda.
Maybe they should just give up on these ridiculous naming contests.

No kidding. One can justify hiring name architects for projects, but somehow naming has to be dumped to the lowest common denominator popularity contest is just a laughable outcome.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

That was a rude response. Bruised ego?

That response was both dumb and rude—the point that rep dedicated the most time to was, essentially, "this was hard, difficult work, so be happy that it was done for you; p.s. do you know how difficult this was? It was really difficult. And hard."

Ugh.

 

[ksun]

That's exactly what the problem is - naming by committee. What they should have done is hire a good ad company. None is this quasi-democratic engagement buy-in PR stuff.

AoD

Exactly. Such creative decisions should not be made democratically, because most people are boring and conservative. Let the professionals do the work, not some 50 year old teachers, engineers and nurses. Let democracy decide boring things such as how to clean dog poop etc., not this.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not for a moment do I believe that there were not decent suggestions as well.

Oh I am sure - but that's where the committee comes in - the tendency to select the least controversial, least potentially offensive, most "representative", safest but most boring choices.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Exactly. Such creative decisions should not be made democratically, because most people are boring and conservative. Let the professionals do the work, not some 50 year old teachers, engineers and nurses. Let democracy decide boring things such as how to clean dog poop etc., not this.

Yeah, it feels like they might've gotten a better result if they'd gone: 1) Naming/branding firm prepares shortlist of non-boring names because it's their specialty to come up with non-boring names; 2) Jury reviews but doesn't introduce any new names itself and selects a final four from among the list; 3) Final four vote goes to the citizens.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, it feels like they might've gotten a better result if they'd gone: 1) Naming/branding firm prepares shortlist of non-boring names because it's their specialty to come up with non-boring names; 2) Jury reviews but doesn't introduce any new names itself and selects a final four from among the list; 3) Final four vote goes to the citizens.

I would even skip the final step. Just what is the public vote supposed to achieve? False choice that will end up dissatisfying what, the plurality of those who voted because the unlikelihood of a single runaway winner?

In fact, the goal of any naming convention should be to create something memorable and most importantly one that will be picked up, used and ultimately owned by the populace - not whether it is representative, meaningful or accurate.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

I would even skip the final step. Just what is the public vote supposed to achieve? False choice that will end up dissatisfying what, the plurality of those who voted because the unlikelihood of a single runaway winner?

AoD

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the public vote, but I understand the desire (without passing judgment on the efficacy of such) to curry favour with the public vis a vis holding an open, democratic, yada yada, naming process. But, yeah, obviously we've seen the pitfalls of the particular chosen approach.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the public vote, but I understand the desire (without passing judgment on the efficacy of such) to curry favour with the public vis a vis holding an open, democratic, yada yada, naming process. But, yeah, obviously we've seen the pitfalls of the particular chosen approach.

Let's be frank, few if anyone really gives a damn about whether naming an armpit space is democratic. It's like trying to name a sewer after something at this point - you have no deliverables, the public have little to no attachment to that space, etc.

I mean just look at the process:

http://www.undergardiner.com/media.html

Gawd.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Let's be frank, few if anyone really gives a damn about whether naming an armpit space is democratic. It's like trying to name a sewer after something at this point - you have no deliverables, the public have little to no attachment to that space, etc.

AoD

I'm totally with you—as you pointed out, processes engineered in this such way are most likely to produce an overly conservative approach, which makes it likely to resort to the easy/ass-covering "let the people decide!" mantra. Which I agree is detrimental to the overall project (any project, really).

 

[ShonTron]

LOL at "Gathering Place"... Could they have included a more basic, literal and un-catchy option than that?

I get they're trying to honour the FN's with that one - but PLEASE.

I preferred Carrying Place - the road is carried over this planned new park. But it recognizes the pre-colonial history as well - Toronto was a carrying place for long portages to Lake Simcoe and Lake Huron.

"The Bentway" is the best of this sorry lot, but I think the fix was in on the name from the start. Look at the branding for this exercise. It was all about the bents. The public naming idea was one that got early public engagement and publicity.

 

[interchange42]

Let the professionals do the work, not some 50 year old teachers, engineers and nurses.

Ageist much? Damn young'n.

42

 

[interchange42]

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the public vote, but I understand the desire (without passing judgment on the efficacy of such) to curry favour with the public vis a vis holding an open, democratic, yada yada, naming process. But, yeah, obviously we've seen the pitfalls of the particular chosen approach.

If there are four strong contenders, then there's no reason not to give the public the chance to choose one. You need the four strong contenders though, not the wettest noddles. The professionally conceived (or at least curated) list would be the place to start.

42