Recently, as one of the leading AI companies that has received much attention, OpenAI decided to unify the naming of its data centers to “Computing Power Park.” This is not merely a change of signage but a deliberate act of brand reshaping: the company spokesperson confirmed this new name to the public and emphasized that “Computing Power Park” more accurately conveys the scale and role of these facilities within the AI system — they are being shaped as the fundamental base supporting future models, representing long-term investments in computing power, energy infrastructure, and skilled labor. In the official narrative, these parks symbolize a forward-looking commitment to capital and technology rather than just being closed server rooms for cooling servers and stacking racks. However, in the broader public view, the term “data center” is still entwined with negative impressions related to energy consumption, land occupation, and community erosion. Reports indicate that during the recent U.S. midterm election debates, these facilities were even brought to the forefront of local issues, and past efforts to improve their image have yielded limited results. Thus, the name “Computing Power Park” must negotiate between two forces: on one side, OpenAI's long-term strategy of continuously increasing investments in computing power and energy infrastructure, and on the other side, the growing societal vigilance toward these massive buildings. This adjustment of name itself exposes the difficulty of reconciling infrastructure expansion with public perception.
From High-Energy Consumption Data Centers to Beautified Computing Power Parks
In the public narrative accumulated over recent years, the term “data center” has almost become synonymous with high-energy-consuming facilities. Reports indicate that these types of buildings receive much negative evaluation in public opinion, with criticism focused on several specific dimensions: the relentless energy consumption, viewed as treating the power grid as a never-ending blood transfusion; the extensive land use, regarded as an invisible driver of local housing and public space squeeze; and the impact on community life, from noise and traffic during construction to environmental changes after operation, all frequently mentioned in local politics and elections. Previously, tech companies attempted to improve the image of data centers through environmental advocacy, community donations, and other methods, but the brief indicates that these efforts have had limited effectiveness, and the stereotype of “cold machine rooms” has never truly been eradicated.
Against this emotional background, OpenAI chose to uniformly rename the same type of facility to “Computing Power Park,” trying to rewrite the public's definition of the massive buildings through language. The company spokesperson emphasized that these computing power parks are long-term investments in computing power, energy infrastructure, and skilled labor, rather than merely energy-consuming facilities, stating that this name better describes their scale and role in AI construction. In the Chinese context, the term “park” inherently carries positive associations of industrial agglomeration, long-term construction, and job opportunities; people think of high-tech industrial parks and innovation parks, rather than steel boxes that merely consume electricity. OpenAI clearly hopes to leverage this imagery, transforming data centers from a questioned energy consumption black hole into a “future industry base” in local development narratives. However, the beautified title of computing power parks represents more a narrative struggle about energy consumption and development rather than a fundamental rewrite of the intrinsic attributes of these buildings.
Naming Politics: Tech Companies Rewrite AI Infrastructure with Language
When “data center” is firmly tied to energy consumption, noise, and land disputes, OpenAI chose to declare war on the lexical level, renaming the same batch of buildings to “Computing Power Park.” This is not simple rhetoric, but a form of naming politics: whoever has the right to name the infrastructure first defines its social role. In explaining the renaming, the OpenAI spokesperson deliberately emphasized that this name is closer to these facilities' “scale” and “role” in AI construction, lifting them from cold cable cabinets to the foundation supporting future technologies. Thus, computing power parks are no longer just places to house servers but are packaged as long-term investments in computing power, energy infrastructure, and skilled labor, forming an entire set of forward-looking regional development narratives.
The intent of this narrative is clear: as data centers have evolved into topics involving community, policy, and election issues, the focus shifts from “what is consumed” to “what is created.” Through the term “park,” which is rich in spatial and industrial connotations, OpenAI attempts to make the public first see skilled positions, long-term capital, and technological advantages before calculating electricity and water meters. The brief also directly regards this renaming as part of brand reshaping and public image adjustment, indicating that the language battlefield has been integrated into the company's infrastructure strategy rather than being a supplementary public relations move. However, reports mention that prior attempts to improve the image of data centers have had limited results, reminding us of the boundaries of naming politics: no matter how grandiose the designation, it cannot erase the realities of energy consumption and land occupation. It can only preemptively set a grander and more positive explanatory framework for these buildings before the controversies erupt, allowing every discussion about them to start from “future industry base” rather than “burden.”
Computing Power Expansion and Community Contestation under the Shadow of Elections
In the context of the recent U.S. midterm elections, data centers have been drawn into public debates, with energy consumption, land use, and community impacts placed on the same issue checklist for scrutiny, with some briefs even categorizing them as an emerging topic in the election battles. As a leading player in the AI industry, OpenAI's infrastructure expansion naturally stands in the spotlight: every piece of land, every transmission line could become a symbol magnified in campaign debates and local hearings about “who pays for technology.” It is also against this backdrop of public opinion that “data centers” were uniformly renamed as “Computing Power Parks,” and this seemingly technical adjustment of terminology is hard not to be understood as a politically charged narrative rewriting.
The term Computing Power Park publicly situates these facilities as long-term investments in computing power, energy infrastructure, and skilled labor, attempting to reposition buildings that could easily be labeled as “electricity monsters” and “land usurpers” within local industry and employment stories. However, the construction of data centers itself requires substantial electricity supply and land planning, which has always been one of the most sensitive issues in local politics: residents are concerned about grid pressure and bills, communities are concerned about planning changes and living environments, and candidates search for discourse space amid these concerns. For OpenAI, computing power expansion is no longer just a technical route issue but enters the field of local negotiations, where each new park must explain itself between skepticism and expectation. This round of renaming and expansion's real examination lies in whether the company can translate the abstract vision of computing power into recognized daily benefits by neighbors through local politics and community discussions.
Can Brand Reshaping Alleviate Anxiety about Computing Power and Energy?
Renaming “data centers” to “Computing Power Parks” indeed attempts to embed cold cabinets and cables within a grander narrative: the long-term investments, layout of computing power and energy infrastructure mentioned by the spokesperson sound more like public engineering aimed at the future rather than an extra power-hungry, land-grabbing industrial warehouse. However, according to existing briefs, prior efforts to improve the image of data centers have had limited effectiveness, and public discussions have always circled back to three main issues: how high is energy consumption, how land is used, and how community life will change. The renaming has neither accompanied adjustments to legal entities nor led to public changes in site selection policies, making it difficult to assert that a new name alone can reverse public opinion without public opinion surveys or quantitative data. It feels more like an additional layer of discourse packaging atop existing controversies.
The narrative of computing power parks may temporarily redirect attention from the “black box-like data centers” to “the infrastructure network supporting AI,” making the external world realize that this is a long-term game involving power systems, skills training, and local industries, rather than an isolated comparison between good and bad buildings. However, as long as key issues remain in the gray area — how the energy consumption curve of the park aligns with the local power grid, whether land planning respects existing communities, and how benefits are distributed between residents and enterprises — the name will struggle to bear the gap of trust. What can truly change the focus of the debate may not be the creation of a more elegant title, but rather improving the transparency and engagement at the project level: companies can choose to publicly disclose energy consumption and land use assumptions during the planning phase, establish communication and feedback mechanisms targeted at communities, and place local stakeholders at the center of the narrative rather than in a spectator position. In these specific negotiation arenas, computing power parks have the opportunity to transform from abstract symbols into long-term commitments recognized by local societies.
The Next Stop for AI Infrastructure Narratives after Computing Power Parks
When the OpenAI spokesperson officially referred to “data centers” as “Computing Power Parks,” explaining it as a long-term investment in computing power, energy infrastructure, and skilled labor, a new narrative label was added to the public lexicon. This is not merely an internal brand reshaping action but seeks a more dignified and forward-looking name for the entire AI industry’s infrastructure. As of now, there have not been exact reports of other companies adopting the same name, but as data centers have been dragged into the contentious arena of energy, land, and community issues during the midterm elections, such a statement infused with planning and public interest implications may likely be borrowed in various forms by market public relations, local governments, and even policy documents, becoming a material repository for the next round of discourse in the competition for infrastructure. The real trend is not solely the four characters of “Computing Power Park” itself but the ongoing repackaging and renaming of the narrative surrounding computing power expansion, energy distribution, and community interests. Future elections and policy debates will continuously produce new labels, but regardless of how names iterate, the core realities regarding who controls computing power, who bears the cost of energy consumption, and who benefits or suffers at the local level will remain central to this long-term competition.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
