I'm a 30 year old architect, and so far I have been working for other companies. As I intend to eventually go solo, and slowly start to develop my own 'thing', I have been thinking about a new logo. I've narrowed it down to these options:
I wanted to keep it simple, preferably not too pretentious, and at the same time to relate it somehow - even if just on an abstract level - to building (structure, mass, etc). Most of them are basically my initials - PA. I'm mostly drawn to a kind of silent, "low-profile" architecture (if possible, with a twist), and my aim is to focus mainly on small scale residential projects (if you find this information helpful at all).
This is a work in progress, and any feedback would be appreciated.
I like #5, but the text will be tough to read on a mobile phone. Perhaps the mobile version is text-less?
It reminds me a bit of Snohetta.
#2 can do with a void in one of the characters - or even a void in each.
Jun 30, 24 4:50 pm ·
·
pedroaires
I did multiple versions of #5, some of them with the text occupying almost all of the black 'sillhouette'. It reads better but definitely takes out some of its monolithic feel. But I think you're right. It could also work without text. It's funny you mention Snohetta's logo... Although I know about it, I actually never cared for it all that much!
2 is good but not quite there. The suggestion to add small voids (maybe circular?) to it is a good one.
Jun 30, 24 7:18 pm ·
·
pedroaires
Thank you! I actually tried adding small voids to #2 before deciding on this version, but realized they didn't really work for me. I think #1 is more playful/inviting, whereas the last one is more serious. It's definitely a matter of settling on a target audience/'brand' strategy.
I'd just add that the logo will be part of a larger graphic / design identity that will find its way across your website, social media, corporate literature etc. And maybe the architecture too! All the best.
Jul 1, 24 9:32 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
New Logo Options
Hi everyone,
New member here.
I'm a 30 year old architect, and so far I have been working for other companies. As I intend to eventually go solo, and slowly start to develop my own 'thing', I have been thinking about a new logo. I've narrowed it down to these options:
I wanted to keep it simple, preferably not too pretentious, and at the same time to relate it somehow - even if just on an abstract level - to building (structure, mass, etc). Most of them are basically my initials - PA. I'm mostly drawn to a kind of silent, "low-profile" architecture (if possible, with a twist), and my aim is to focus mainly on small scale residential projects (if you find this information helpful at all).
This is a work in progress, and any feedback would be appreciated.
What do you think?
Thank you,
P.
To be honest - first three feel corporate, at least to me. Logo 5 or maybe 4 on white background might work best?
Thank you, that's helpful feedback! I think so, but #4 seems to me now a bit 'weak' in comparison with the other options.
I like #3
I like #5, but the text will be tough to read on a mobile phone. Perhaps the mobile version is text-less?
It reminds me a bit of Snohetta.
#2 can do with a void in one of the characters - or even a void in each.
I did multiple versions of #5, some of them with the text occupying almost all of the black 'sillhouette'. It reads better but definitely takes out some of its monolithic feel. But I think you're right. It could also work without text. It's funny you mention Snohetta's logo... Although I know about it, I actually never cared for it all that much!
Both #5s are thumbs-up bulldogs. Somethings clients would like.
That's good to know!
#5 is best. #1 is my 2nd choice.
2 is good but not quite there. The suggestion to add small voids (maybe circular?) to it is a good one.
Thank you! I actually tried adding small voids to #2 before deciding on this version, but realized they didn't really work for me. I think #1 is more playful/inviting, whereas the last one is more serious. It's definitely a matter of settling on a target audience/'brand' strategy.
Nice work!
Keep in mind that your name and logo need to communicate what it is you do.
I like #4 and #5. In my opinion, if you use #4 you'd want a tag line under it.
Thanks! They definitely do, although I'm trying to convey that just enough without being too literal about it. Will keep that in mind!
I'd just add that the logo will be part of a larger graphic / design identity that will find its way across your website, social media, corporate literature etc. And maybe the architecture too! All the best.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.