The recipe for a successful name, it seems, is staying clear of current personalities or brands. “Names that have stood the test of time add cachet to a building, even if they don’t add any commercial value,” says Gough.

The Chrysler Building in New York and the Harrods Furniture Depository in London are two such examples. Occupiers choose to be in these buildings because of their location and spec and, originally, both were built and occupied by the named companies – a trend far less common today. Construction is rarely solely funded by a single owner-occupier, hence fewer brands are woven into the fabric of modern buildings.

But that doesn’t stop today’s tenants, acutely aware of a building’s brand value, trying to make their mark and get themselves attached to a building somehow. They often request to change a building’s name when negotiating the lease. Salesforce famously sought to rename London’s Heron Tower to Salesforce Tower. Their efforts didn’t succeed. But in Chicago, Willis’s did, when they renamed the Sears Tower in 2009.

This is a rare example, says Gough: “We’re seeing fewer corporate egos dictating what buildings are called. Perhaps it’s because of more multi-occupancy use on shorter lease terms or perhaps it has become too risky to tie up a building’s identity with a dominant occupier.”