What's the fuss about names
If there’s anything we’re known for, and has piqued journalists’ interest (some friendly, some not so friendly) , it’s the renaming of Dundas Street. We led the community engagement discovery phase of the Dundas Street naming project and through that, we had the opportunity to work with the City of Mississauga in developing their asset naming framework and guiding principles.
These two very different but heavily connected projects led to a few questions:
What’s in a name?
Do names really matter?
Does it matter if streets are named after racist people in history?
Do we really need guidelines and policies to navigate future place naming?
Is this money well spent?
It would be so simple for us to just say yes and move on. But we’re not like that. There is rhyme and reason, data and most importantly, equity at the centre of everything we do. So let’s look into it. What is it about naming and renaming that makes it such an important and controversial topic? First, let’s break down the difference between place naming and re-naming?
Place naming refers to the process of giving specific locations or assets (roads, parks, monuments, buildings, fields or localities), names . Historically these locations are named after influential people, groups, events, geographical features, or flora and fauna.
Asset or place renaming refers to the process of changing an existing name. Examples of both exist in Canada and outside Canada. Post-independence India changed the names of multiple states, cities and towns with three of the most well known globally being Calcutta renamed to Kolkata, Madras to Chennai and Bombay to Mumbai. Other examples include Tanganyika to Tanzania and Burma to Myanmar.
Place naming and renaming for the purpose of reinvention and re-affirming identity after decades of oppression is not a new practice. This is especially common for formerly colonized nations looking to recognize the harm that existing names carry and doing their best to repair that legacy of harm. History cannot be changed but naming and renaming is an important step towards recognizing the past and prioritizing justice.
Creating strong naming principles, policies and frameworks that are embedded in equity are an important step to reducing the likelihood of future renaming. Places reflect the lives of the ever changing communities around them, and the changing nature of the world and celebrate everyone, not just a few.
That makes sense. So what’s the problem, and how do approach it?
A small (read huge) disagreement on the role the past plays
That people continue to disagree about the role colonialism has had in destroying whole communities and creating generational trauma is upsetting, but doesn’t surprise us. In the case of Dundas Street, there have been groups of people who disagree with the skewed legacy of Henry Dundas, with a few calling it “a hoax” and using the cost of the name change to ridicule the whole endeavor. In South Africa, the proposal to rename Louis Trichardt town to Makhado town was first accepted then appealed and the decision reversed. History has shown us that even small groups fearing change can halt progress, despite calls for equity.
As renaming causes a ruckus, naming processes and policies have emerged in public discourse. The City of Mississauga has taken a significant step into acknowledging the complexity of names and is charting a way forward with a focus on creating a framework for naming that has been designed with extensive research and community engagement. A tangible way to manage growing polarization about history and it’s legacies is to pour appropriate resources and time into robust research and community engagement processes. Which bring us to the question of who participates in those engagement processes.
The question of who should be involved?
Engaging relevant communities is crucial in naming and renaming processes. Specifically, these are the people who directly confront the legacies of history as they interact with these places daily. Their experiences offer valuable insights into the significance of names and our connection to them.
Through our community engagements in Toronto and Mississauga, we've facilitated dialogues that allow people to explore how place names impact them and their communities. We've collaborated with community leaders, leveraging their expertise and networks to gather insights on their terms.
The question arises: should everyone be involved? Our answer is a resounding yes. While reaching everyone may not be feasible, providing diverse spaces for dialogue ensures everyone has a chance to share their perspectives. That being said, it's critical to understand that outcomes cannot be based on majority rules, but on analysis that encompasses historical context and centers equity.
The pitfalls of commemorative naming
Naming places after individuals, whether historical figures or loved ones, has long been a common practice in place naming. This tradition persists in municipalities like the Ottawa and Halifax, where commemorative names are still prevalent. While commemorative, there's a growing recognition of the need for more thoughtful and inclusive approaches to naming.
However, globally, there's a trend moving away from this practice. The United Nations has highlighted the challenges of naming places after individuals, citing concerns about public perception and the complexities involved, especially when naming features after deceased individuals. Sweden, for instance, has adjusted its naming policies in line with these considerations.
QuakeLab’s recommendation to the the constituencies we work with follows a similar train of thought: Start with naming principles that are intentional, community oriented, recognize the natural elements of the land and prioritizes Indigenous naming practices - this includes commemorative naming.
Money talks… but what does it say!?
When discussing place naming, it's crucial to consider the cost implications. Take the Dundas Street renaming project: While it might seem expensive on its own, when viewed in the context of Toronto's annual city budget, the cost is minimal—less than 1% of the total budget.
Investing in effective naming processes, consulting with experts (like us), and engaging communities is a proactive and cost-saving measure. By establishing robust naming principles, guidelines, and frameworks, cities can avoid future renaming expenses and controversies that emerge in the most inopportune moments and become a budgeting nightmare.
Viewing this investment as a mere financial burden also overlooks the broader impact. This is an investment in placemaking—a way to shape the identity and values of communities for generations to come. Building an equitable world not only ensures safer cities, provinces, towns and states, and lays the foundation for ongoing progress and investment in the future. In short, the cost is justified by the lasting benefits it brings to society.
If you're ready to embark on a journey of naming and renaming, or if you simply want to learn more about our approach, reach out to us at hello@quakelab.ca. Let's start a conversation that will shape the future of our communities.