Monday, 26 April 2010

Auckland’s logo?

It’s not just the city’s new super-bureaucracy that’s not going to be super. Have you seen their new logo?

supercitylogo_new_2 Just so you know (since you’d hardly guess otherwise) it’s supposed to be “a stylised pohutukawa.” It’s not only not very compelling, it’s hardly even original:  it appears to have been filched and then ‘koru-ised’ from the US’s all-encompassing, all-stultifying Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [hat tip Leighton Smith]:

epa_logo No wonder Bob Harvey likes the logo so much.



5 comments:

Barry said...

I doubt if someone could copyright or patent the idea of having a flower in a circle.

As someone who has lived in Auckland it was immediately apparent to me that it was a pohutakawa tree.

I do think they could try harder though.

Also I think you incorrectly referred to it as their logo. I don't think that is confirmed yet. You could say 'possible logo'.

Anonymous said...

Gawd, how oppressively caring, nice & bland. It reeks of enforced friendliness between people who probably hate each other, and there's no way to escape being part of it unless you want to be crushed between the korus. Unity through powerpoint widgets! Let's hold hands & sing kumbayarrrr all the way into fascist consensus hell.

It's a perfect study for projecting the opposite of what the reality will be. Green? It will pile on the slabs of grey concrete. Inclusive? Totalitarian. Connected? Authoritarian central command. Open? Secrets, agendas, agendas. So Orwellian.

The irony? This is an ACT creation.

At least 'empire' type logos were honest in their presentation of authority backed by force.

Nic said...

How much did some design agency wallop them for this nonsense?
Let's start the 'educated' guessing:

- $450K?

LGM said...

Barry

"I doubt if someone could copyright or patent the idea of having a flower in a circle."

Apply for trademark registration under the Madrid Protocol since it ain't an invention and is therefore not patentable.

The designer has copyright merely by the act of creating it in the first place. He may have assigned his copyright to the Council if they paid him to.

Now, here's a question. Who has the moral rights to it?


LGM

K said...

If the super city is really to do with being more affordable what is wrong with just typing "Auckland City Council" in 10 point accross the top of the page.

To me this multicolour logo screams more wastage and branding for a monopoly