General Updates and News

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

This logo recognises the usual rendition of the name of the city and has a slogan which describes its status in the world.
http://www.joburg.org.za/

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

Totally agree. The letters to the Herald this morning -- I just read them-- are the typical idiotic pablum from the whiners who usually surface when projects like these are undertaken.

It's a diverse group. Some like to pretend "they" could do better for $300K, but whenever I see actual attempts on twitter, etc, they are truly laughable. Some writers are the sorts of people who vote for mayors like Rob Ford: they don't conceive of their city doing anything other than filling potholes and plowing their road after it snows. They don't "get" the value in thinking bigger as a city. Others don't get the connection between branding and economic development. It's funny to see one letter complain about Council "not caring" about the Imperial refinery shutting down in Dartmouth while ripping it for the branding exercise. The branding is part of attracting new business, investment, economic development, and ultimately jobs you idiot.

It's a diverse crowd but all have something in common: when they hear some money was spend on branding... well, goodness gracious! Time to write a letter to the newspaper!

More conservatism, provincialism, whining. Maybe that should be our motto?

The logo's *political* problem is that it is fairly basic and clean and does not pander to any particular group or stakeholder. There's no group with a vested interest to write in letters in support. So the whole thing is one-sided.

The logo is a helpful change and the "Be Bold" line isn't our city's new motto, it's what is called a brand promise. Meaning, the marketing strategies used to roll out the brand, will attempt to be bold. Which is what we need.

[counterfactual]

And just so we know we're not alone, London, Ontario, recently rebranded their city and created a new city logo. Here it is:



And the typical public response:

Far from a perfect 6.0. London’s new logo to promote the world figure skating championships isn’t exactly wowing some Londoners.

“The work shown is frankly pathetic, and should not be considered as a professional design. Sad,” one user chimed in.

Said another: “If this is how we represent our city, we have the right to be critical; especially when that kind of money and agencies are involved.”

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/01/20/judging-by-its-looks

And:

"However the approximately $200,000 cost of marketing the logo is concerning some Londoners who are speaking out against the new design."

http://www.westerngazette.ca/2013/01/22/london-unveils-new-national-city-logo/

A few other typical city logos, all pretty boring. I think by comparison, Halifax's is uniquely futuristic. I like that.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

To be fair to the posters on this forum, I think people have given honest, intelligent comments. I think selecting a logo is important and having a recognizable, enduring logo will be an important component of re-branding Halifax. Among the city logos above (posted by counterfactual) the only one that I actually like is the Toronto logo. The Toronto logo is relatively simple but shows what Toronto is about - a modern, progressive city with bold architecture. The other city logos aren't meaningful to the majority of people, in my opinion.

The two colour Halifax logo seems to contradict the purpose as stated below. Having the two tones in the logo is extremely distracting to me. A simpler, less contrived logo would be one solid colour.

(source: http://halifaxdefined.ca/#why)
"The logo. The new Halifax logo is bold in its simplicity. Like our region, the logo is not cluttered, over-embellished or contrived. Its strength is in its simplicity, and its simplicity makes a bold statement. Clean, geometric lines bring quiet strength, energy and balance. It has subtle nods to upward momentum and forward progress. While the colour palette is based on bright colours from our local environment and nature, the base colours are shades of blue, which represent our many lakes, the ocean and the sky."



Instead of having two colour tones, which is visually distracting, a simple logo that shows the seafaring nature of Halifax could have been portrayed in a similar manner as the following ACL logo:

(source: https://flagspot.net/flags/gb~hfan.html#acl )



It would be almost impossible to come up with a completely unique logo. The two tone Halifax logo isn't really unique, so why not just do something similar to the ACL logo?

[xanaxanax]

"Toronto is about - a modern, progressive city with bold architecture" but Toronto is such architecturally bland city

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It would be almost impossible to come up with a completely unique logo. The two tone Halifax logo isn't really unique, so why not just do something similar to the ACL logo?

Because then people would be crying, "It's too similar to the ACL logo!! I could do better than that!!"

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

It's not the same font and it's not the same color. Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

Phil Otto was in the media last week and said the logo design part of the exercise cost about $10K. The rest of it was the months of meetings and consultations with stakeholders that gave them the insights they needed to come up with the concepts behind the logo.

The letters to the editor in the Herald today are more of this same kind of bellyaching. I expected a bit more from the posters here who are generally more intelligent than online commentators in the Herald. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

If you dont think they are the same, you should have YOUR eyes checked.

"months of meetings with stakeholders".. Do you own stock in Revolve or something? I see NOTHING in that new logo that would have came from any consults... There is just nothing there! "Do you want the dark blue on the left or right of the letters?" Thats about it.

So it's bellyaching when people write in that they think this new logo is —, yet when you CONTINUOUSLY — on the library and "Queen Judith", both here and in the Herald, it isnt? Because you happen to like said logo. Give your head a shake.

For the record I do like Toronto's bold text juxtaposed with city halls unique architecture. A derivative of that would be Halifax and the clock tower outline.

For a script logo, I really like Ottawa's. London's good too, but Id lose the "Canada's". At least both those logo's have some flare. Halifax's is just blah.

But dont let me seem too critical of of Revolve Branding... They do Great, Unique work. I mean, its not like they stole Orange's logo when they did Eastlink's new one!!! Eastlink is blue and that K is totes different

[OldDartmouthMark]

I actually like the new Halifax better than those of the other cities shown here. Would still prefer actual "A"s, but realize what they were trying to do here.

Let's see what it looks like once the transformation is in place... it'll probably look good on police cars, city vehicles and such.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by scooby074

If you dont think they are the same, you should have YOUR eyes checked.

"months of meetings with stakeholders".. Do you own stock in Revolve or something? I see NOTHING in that new logo that would have came from any consults... There is just nothing there! "Do you want the dark blue on the left or right of the letters?" Thats about it.

Demonstrating my point about the shocking ignorance of the public once again, I see. They weren't consulting about graphic design features. They wanted to know how people felt about this place. Which, based on reactions like yours, must have been a pretty depressing process.

So it's bellyaching when people write in that they think this new logo is —, yet when you CONTINUOUSLY — on the library and "Queen Judith", both here and in the Herald, it isnt? Because you happen to like said logo. Give your head a shake.

My criticism of that project isn't based simply on the "Waaaah, I don't like it! My KID could have done better!" bellyaching I see from the likes of you. It is based on budgets and process and cost and need. Try to keep up.

[Hali87]

Is it a good logo if most people think it looks bad though?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Is it a good logo if most people think it looks bad though?

Do you think that is the case? Has there been polling done? I don't think it's true. I think we hear from the whiners because we love to whine in this city. And then the silent majority of people who think it looks good or fine, or "fine enough, have better things to do than to write letters of support.

Also, the logo doesn't pander to anyone, so there are no groups with vested interest to defend it. For example, if it had a reference to the bridges, I'm sure the FRIEND OF HALIFAX BRIDGES group would be letter writing or something.

PS: If I see one more complaint about the money spent on this should be used for potholes... The people who think the sole role of City Government is to fill potholes are the people who vote for Rob Ford and Peter Kelly and are part of the reason why we've had such crappy City Government, urban planning, and city economic development for so long.

[ILoveHalifax]

Moderator, I don't think these last couple of posts have anything to do with Halifax

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Demonstrating my point about the shocking ignorance of the public once again, I see. They weren't consulting about graphic design features. They wanted to know how people felt about this place. Which, based on reactions like yours, must have been a pretty depressing process.



My criticism of that project isn't based simply on the "Waaaah, I don't like it! My KID could have done better!" bellyaching I see from the likes of you. It is based on budgets and process and cost and need. Try to keep up.

Reactions like mine? Its not only me. Look around. Maybe they should have asked opinions about the logo? Its an obvious flop. Wants and needs? We need the new library considerably more than this logo.

The Logo —. My kid COULD have done better, anyone's kid could have done better. Its a complete rip off of the Samsung logo. A joke for $300k, even $10k, the number that was thrown around for the graphic itself.

Whilst I think this is a complete waste of money given just how deep we are in red ink and how much other stuff should come first, if the logo itself was decent it could be tolerated, but the logo is NOT decent. Its —.

There are lots of great City logos in this thread. Vancouver's, Ottawa's and Toronto's for example. Halifax's new pair of pants logo isn't close to being the same calibre.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Is it a good logo if most people think it looks bad though?

Exactly. It isnt. People need to feel a connection to a good logo. This new one lacks that connection.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Do you think that is the case? Has there been polling done? I don't think it's true. I think we hear from the whiners because we love to whine in this city. And then the silent majority of people who think it looks good or fine, or "fine enough, have better things to do than to write letters of support.

.
.
.

PS: If I see one more complaint about the money spent on this should be used for potholes...
.
.
.

For many people the money spent is not a factor. After all the money spent on re-branding isn't just for the logo. However, I am not sure that the majority of people actually like the logo.

When people on this forum read the description of the logo did anyone have the following impression pop into their mind - "The logo. The new Halifax logo is bold in its simplicity. Like our region, the logo is not cluttered, over-embellished or contrived. Its strength is in its simplicity, and its simplicity makes a bold statement. Clean, geometric lines bring quiet strength, energy and balance. It has subtle nods to upward momentum and forward progress. While the colour palette is based on bright colours from our local environment and nature, the base colours are shades of blue, which represent our many lakes, the ocean and the sky." The only way to understand the logo is by reading the thoughts expressed by the designer (http://halifaxdefined.ca/#why). For that reason it is contrived (which is what it is not supposed to be). A definition of contrived - "Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural; labored" (source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contrived).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by scooby074

Exactly. It isnt. People need to feel a connection to a good logo. This new one lacks that connection.

Yeah, because if it hasn't been universally embraced after 6 days, it's obviously a failure. Let's scrap it and get someone's kid to design one with bridges and lighthouses and waves and kingfishers. Yeah, that's the ticket!!

[OldDartmouthMark]

I agree that we need to give it time. I wasn't a fan of it at first, but it's growing on me, upside-down V's and everything...

I haven't read through the documentation, but will the rebranding mean a shift in colours for city vehicles as well?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

For many people the money spent is not a factor. After all the money spent on re-branding isn't just for the logo. However, I am not sure that the majority of people actually like the logo.

When people on this forum read the description of the logo did anyone have the following impression pop into their mind - "The logo. The new Halifax logo is bold in its simplicity. Like our region, the logo is not cluttered, over-embellished or contrived. Its strength is in its simplicity, and its simplicity makes a bold statement. Clean, geometric lines bring quiet strength, energy and balance. It has subtle nods to upward momentum and forward progress. While the colour palette is based on bright colours from our local environment and nature, the base colours are shades of blue, which represent our many lakes, the ocean and the sky." The only way to understand the logo is by reading the thoughts expressed by the designer (http://halifaxdefined.ca/#why). For that reason it is contrived (which is what it is not supposed to be). A definition of contrived - "Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural; labored" (source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contrived).

Fenwick, come on. All marketing and branding is contrived. Almost by definition. Why would anyone in their right mind pay $300K for an improvised or "spontaneous" new logo?

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Do you think that is the case? Has there been polling done? I don't think it's true. I think we hear from the whiners because we love to whine in this city. And then the silent majority of people who think it looks good or fine, or "fine enough, have better things to do than to write letters of support.

Also, the logo doesn't pander to anyone, so there are no groups with vested interest to defend it. For example, if it had a reference to the bridges, I'm sure the FRIEND OF HALIFAX BRIDGES group would be letter writing or something.

PS: If I see one more complaint about the money spent on this should be used for potholes... The people who think the sole role of City Government is to fill potholes are the people who vote for Rob Ford and Peter Kelly and are part of the reason why we've had such crappy City Government, urban planning, and city economic development for so long.

I'm not basing this off anything scientific, just the fact that every single person I've talked to about it reacted negatively. Maybe not "I hate this" but definitely a lot of "it would make more sense as a logo for the airport". I haven't heard anything exclusively positive about it from a single person that I know, and I wouldn't consider my friends to be particularly conservative or afraid of change or what have you. It's just not a particularly good logo from a design standpoint.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yeah, because if it hasn't been universally embraced after 6 days, it's obviously a failure. Let's scrap it and get someone's kid to design one with bridges and lighthouses and waves and kingfishers. Yeah, that's the ticket!!

You know when you hit a home run when it leaves the bat... This logo isnt a home run, it's a strike out.