Lame Name, Belmont, CA

Belmont, California. The name means "beautiful mountain." I drove through it on the way down the Peninsula. There is no beautiful mountain. There is a modest hill. The town is fine. It is a perfectly decent suburban community between San Mateo and Redwood City. But calling it "beautiful mountain" is like naming your child "Hercules" and then raising an accountant.

The Naming Gap

Place names are tiny grand narratives. They tell a story about what the place wants to be, or what its founders wanted it to be, or what somebody thought would look good on a real estate brochure. The gap between the name and the reality is often wide, and almost always revealing.

California is full of these. Pleasanton. It is pleasant enough. Mountain View. There is a view of mountains, from certain angles, on clear days. Sunnyvale. Okay, that one is mostly accurate. But the point is that the names were chosen not to describe but to attract. They are marketing copy from the nineteenth century, still plastered on highway signs as if they were geographic facts.

The naming gap is a tempo phenomenon. Names are set at one moment in time - the founding, the incorporation, the first survey - and then persist long after the conditions that inspired them have changed. The name is frozen. The place keeps moving. Belmont may have looked more mountainous when the surrounding landscape was undeveloped. Or it may never have been mountainous and someone was simply optimistic. Either way, the name now belongs to a different era than the place it labels.

What Names Carry

A good place name carries its history without being crushed by it. "New Orleans" still works because the city has accumulated enough of its own identity that the reference to old Orleans has become purely structural. Nobody visits New Orleans thinking about France, at least not primarily. The name has been overwritten by the reality.

A bad place name carries a promise it cannot keep. "Belmont" promises beauty and mountains and delivers strip malls and a Caltrain station. The name creates a tempo mismatch - you arrive expecting one thing and find another. The dissonance is small but real. It sits in the background, a minor irritation that you cannot quite name. Which is ironic, given that the problem is the name.

The best American place names are the ones that describe what is actually there. Salt Lake City. There is a salt lake. It is a city. Done. Grand Rapids. There are rapids. They are grand, or at least they were before the dam. These names age well because they are descriptive rather than aspirational. They do not overpromise.

Aspiration vs. Description

Every name is a bet about identity. Aspirational names bet that the place will grow into its label. Descriptive names bet that the place already is what it says. The difference in tempo is real. An aspirational name pulls the future toward it - you are building toward a promise. A descriptive name anchors the present - you are acknowledging what already exists.

Most place names in the American West are aspirational. The founders were selling land to people who had never been there. The names had to sound good enough to justify a train ticket. "Belmont" sounds like a place you would want to live. "Modest Hill Near the Railroad Tracks" does not. The marketing won. The accuracy lost.

I do not mean to pick on Belmont specifically. It is just the one I drove through today. But the phenomenon is everywhere. We name things for what we wish they were, and then we live with the gap between the name and the truth. Sometimes the place grows into the name. Often the name just sits there, a fossil of someone else's optimism, slightly embarrassing in the daylight.

Still, I prefer the aspirational names to the corporate ones. Whatever its faults, "Belmont" has personality. "Innovation District" does not.

Related

• Week 2: Ann Arbor, Nashville, Atlanta, New Orleans - city identities observed from the road
• Freytag Staircases in Nashville - how physical structure tells a story about place