Why is there a Daystrom building already?

[Locutus of Bored]

Daystrom designed the duotronic computers Starfleet uses on their ships in 2243 in the Prime Universe. If he has accomplished the same thing in the Alternate Universe, it makes perfect sense to me that a building on the Starfleet Headquarters campus 16 years later could be named after him.

 

[BillJ]

Regardless of whether money exists or not, the accumulation of personal wealth(and naming buildings after yourself) as a driving force was supposed to be more or less eliminated even by Archers time.

That is one huge retcon and pretty much ignores TOS. Since this is a movie based on TOS, it makes sense they'd have money.

 

[dahj]

Daystrom designed the duotronic computers Starfleet uses on their ships in 2243 in the Prime Universe. If he has accomplished the same thing in the Alternate Universe, it makes perfect sense to me that a building on the Starfleet Headquarters campus 16 years later could be named after him.

If he's dead, perhaps, but naming it after a living person who's at that point in his thirties and hasn't done anything worthwhile since he was in his early twenties is still really weird and unusual.

Kirk saved the entire planet Earth, a rather decent accomplishment as well.
Should there then be a James T. Kirk building somewhere?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Shatner auditioned for the part of yelling, "Khaaaan!!!!", back in The Ultimate Computer, when he yelled, "Daystrom!!!"

Connection? Oh, probably none. But I just thought I'd mention it.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

There are tons of buildings named after people who are still quite alive, because they're donated "assistance" to its construction (perhaps Daystrom gave a generous heaping of Quatloos for naming rights). Off the top of my head: USC in LA has the Lucas Building, the Spielberg Sound Stage, the Annenberg Building (he was alive when it was built). The Griffith Observatory in LA has the LEONARD NIMOY pavillion.

 

[Belz...]

It's not weird that he has a building named after him. For all we know, he built the thing. What's weird to me is that they use his building as Starfleet HQ; you'd think that would be its own building.

Wasn't it just the Daystrom room or something ? Hotels have names for their meeting rooms.

 

[Christopher]

That's the 24th century. In TOS, there were frequent references to money

That is true, though I think that

Kirk said in TVH that they didn't have money in the 23rd century

was meant to retcon that.

I doubt it was an intentional contradiction -- more likely Nicholas Meyer (who mostly wrote the 20th-century portions) wasn't intimately familiar enough with TOS to remember the references to money.

Regardless of whether money exists or not, the accumulation of personal wealth(and naming buildings after yourself) as a driving force was supposed to be more or less eliminated even by Archers time.

And Daystrom certainly never looked like a dude that was in it for the money.

Even so, it would still take money to erect a building -- a large project using up a lot of resources and labor. And even if money isn't an end in itself in the future the way it is now, I don't think that would eliminate the desire for personal prestige. I mean, we know that the Prime-universe Daystrom was driven by the need for prestige and acclaim, seeking to surpass his early triumphs.

There are tons of buildings named after people who are still quite alive, because they're donated "assistance" to its construction (perhaps Daystrom gave a generous heaping of Quatloos for naming rights). Off the top of my head: USC in LA has the Lucas Building, the Spielberg Sound Stage, the Annenberg Building (he was alive when it was built). The Griffith Observatory in LA has the LEONARD NIMOY pavillion.

Right. A lot of buildings on my university campus were named for the philanthropists who endowed them. I don't understand this perception that it's normal for buildings to be named only after dead people. Since when was that a tradition?

 

[Greg Cox]

There are tons of buildings named after people who are still quite alive, because they're donated "assistance" to its construction (perhaps Daystrom gave a generous heaping of Quatloos for naming rights). Off the top of my head: USC in LA has the Lucas Building, the Spielberg Sound Stage, the Annenberg Building (he was alive when it was built). The Griffith Observatory in LA has the LEONARD NIMOY pavillion.

Heck, Ricardo Montalban had a theater named after him while he was still alive.

If it's good enough for Khan . . .

And who is to say Daystrom was in it for the money? Maybe he sunk all his energy, funds, and resources into the Institute and its research for the good of science. Doesn't mean he didn't have an ego--or couldn't be talked into putting his name on the building.

(As I recall, he wasn't particularly humble on TOS.)

 

[Christopher]

And who is to say Daystrom was in it for the money?

Sure. After all, they don't pay people to name buildings after them -- they name buildings after people who donate money. It's a commemoration of their generosity, not their greed. So it's perfectly in keeping with a society where money still exists to an extent but humanity has overcome petty greed.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Doesn't mean he didn't have an ego--or couldn't be talked into putting his name on the building.

(As I recall, he wasn't particularly humble on TOS.)

"You [M5] are great; I am great."

 

[Greg Cox]

That's the 24th century. In TOS, there were frequent references to money

That is true, though I think that

Kirk said in TVH that they didn't have money in the 23rd century

was meant to retcon that.

Honestly, I think that's reading too much into one throwaway gag in a light-hearted movie. I seriously doubt anybody was worrying about the larger continuity implications at the time. It was just a funny complication in a funny film.

And little in TOS indicates that money is not an issue out on the final frontier. Remember those miners in "Devil in the Dark" who were hoping to strike it rich? Or Flint buying his own planet?

 

[Pavonis]

Clearly Daystrom was a great man, a genius, and could conceivably donate or organize the construction of a building that would bear his name. But why would Starfleet Command have meetings there? I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that a Daystrom Building would be devoted to computer science, or at least scientific research in general. Why would Starfleet Command have meetings there, and not in one of their own buildings?

It'd be like the US Joint Chiefs having a meeting in the American Museum of Natural History instead of the Pentagon. They could do it, but why?

 

[Christopher]

I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that a Daystrom Building would be devoted to computer science, or at least scientific research in general. Why would Starfleet Command have meetings there, and not in one of their own buildings?

Because Starfleet is primarily a scientific research organization. That's as much a part of its mission as defense.

Alternatively: Computers would likely play a big role in intelligence gathering, data mining, simulating threat scenarios, and the like, so it would be logical to hold important strategic meetings in the place with the best computers.

 

[Greg Cox]

Have you read the Sigma Force novels by James Rollins? Sigma's secret HQ is beneath the Smithsonian?

Seriously, who knows why things get named the way they do. I attended Thomas Jefferson High School even though Jefferson never set in Washington State--and neither did George Washington!

We may be over-thinking this . . .

 

[dahj]

Even so, it would still take money to erect a building

I'm not so sure about that.
It was implied that even in Archer's time the foundations and the first couple of floors of what was to become Picard's speech about the way future society works in First Contact were firmly in place, and that even if money or credits or whatever still existed in day to day life they weren't the driving force of the economy. By that point we had supposedly evolved both technologically and as a society in a way that if a building was needed, it would have been built.

I don't understand this perception that it's normal for buildings to be named only after dead people. Since when was that a tradition?

If those people don't give money for the building in question it's certainly unusual.

Without forking over cash you have to be either dead or really old and exiting the stage to have anything named after you.

I'd really like to hear a name of any person under 40 and living that had a building named after them based solely on merit, if you'd care to provide one.

Honestly, I think that's reading too much into one throwaway gag in a light-hearted movie

Perhaps, but since then no Star Trek show has had money.

And little in TOS indicates that money is not an issue out on the final frontier. Remember those miners in "Devil in the Dark" who were hoping to strike it rich? Or Flint buying his own planet?

That's all true, but all modern shows, even Enterprise, make it like money isn't really a thing, if it's there at all.

But then again, there may have been a recession in TOS time, so it was more of an issue

 

[Belz...]

Regardless of whether money exists or not, the accumulation of personal wealth(and naming buildings after yourself) as a driving force was supposed to be more or less eliminated even by Archers time.

That is one huge retcon and pretty much ignores TOS. Since this is a movie based on TOS, it makes sense they'd have money.

I blame Lily and Picard. The good captain shouldn't have told her all that.

 

[Christopher]

Even so, it would still take money to erect a building

I'm not so sure about that.
It was implied that even in Archer's time the foundations and the first couple of floors of what was to become Picard's speech about the way future society works in First Contact were firmly in place, and that even if money or credits or whatever still existed in day to day life they weren't the driving force of the economy. By that point we had supposedly evolved both technologically and as a society in a way that if a building was needed, it would have been built.

Yes, but the resources still have to come from somewhere, and the people doing the labor still deserve to be compensated. We know, canonically, that Starfleet officers are paid for their service; therefore it stands to reason that the people who built a Starfleet building would not be working for free.

I'd really like to hear a name of any person under 40 and living that had a building named after them based solely on merit, if you'd care to provide one.

Who says it was solely on merit? Richard Daystrom made the biggest computer breakthrough of his age -- an age where money still exists and there are still ultra-rich individuals like Flint and Carter Winston. No doubt Daystrom was as loaded as Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, at least in proportion to the standards of the 23rd-century economy.

Perhaps, but since then no Star Trek show has had money.

But that doesn't mean the line in the movie was meant to bring about that result. There was no such agenda behind it. It's just that the movies have had proportionally more impact on how Star Trek is perceived than the TV series did -- which is why Kirk is perceived as a rule-breaking hothead even though the only time he ever really went rogue was in The Search for Spock, and why there's a meme about Scotty having a reputation as a miracle worker even though that description was never used for him prior to TSFS.

That's all true, but all modern shows, even Enterprise, make it like money isn't really a thing, if it's there at all.

No, it wouldn't have been the overarching goal in life or the primary determinant of a person's perceived worth the way it is today, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still play a functional role in the economy. It's just that people would've learned to see money as merely a means to an end rather than an end in itself. (Well, except for people like Harry Mudd who are trying to get rich by whatever means.)

 

[Corran Horn]

I assumed it was the Daystrom Conference Room. Was there a chyron that said 'building'?

 

[Pavonis]

No chyron, but Pike told Kirk the meeting was in the Daystrom Building. Kirk had to change clothes before attending, so I assume Pike told him where to go because Pike went there straight away.

Of course, I've only seen the film once, so my memory could be faulty.

 

[Christopher]

^According to the Memory Alpha talk page, Pike just said "Emergency session, Daystrom." Apparently there was a reference to the "Daystrom Conference Room" among the calls for help during the attack, but it's unclear whether that actually means a room named "the Daystrom Conference Room" or the conference room in the Daystrom Building/Complex/whatever.