Archinect
anchor

New Logo Options

pedroaires

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.

 
Jun 30, 24 1:05 pm
newbie.Phronesis

To be honest - first three feel corporate, at least to me. Logo 5 or maybe 4 on white background might work best?

Jun 30, 24 2:19 pm  · 
 · 
pedroaires

Thank you, that's helpful feedback! I think so, but #4 seems to me now a bit 'weak' in comparison with the other options.

Jul 1, 24 6:34 pm  · 
 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I like #3

Jun 30, 24 2:43 pm  · 
2  · 
monosierra

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!

Jul 1, 24 5:21 pm  · 
1  · 
logon'slogin

Both #5s are thumbs-up bulldogs. Somethings clients would like.

Jun 30, 24 6:33 pm  · 
 · 
pedroaires

That's good to know!

Jul 1, 24 5:15 pm  · 
 · 
reallynotmyname

#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.


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.

Jul 1, 24 5:15 pm  · 
 · 

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.  

Jul 1, 24 9:58 am  · 
 · 
pedroaires

Thanks! They definitely do, although I'm trying to convey that just enough without being too literal about it. Will keep that in mind!


Jul 1, 24 6:42 pm  · 
 · 
monosierra

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  · 
 · 
pedroaires

No doubt. The logo is just a part of what should look like and be a  coherent whole. Thank you.

Jul 4, 24 2:26 pm  · 
 · 
J G

#1 is the best

Jul 3, 24 5:26 pm  · 
1  · 
Wood Guy

#1 is my least favorite; I guess the steps are supposed to look like stairs, but the result looks like 1980s video-game font to me. 

There is a pleasing architectural/sculptural quality to #2 and #3 but they are a bit abstract. I think a good logo should tell you something about the business, and these don't do that for me. 

#4 is clever but the thin font is weak.

#5 is my favorite, by default. If it looks something like the architecture you typically design, I'd say go with that one. If you also design with more traditional shapes, I would go back to the drawing board, or work with a graphic designer. Architects seem to think they are better at graphic design than they usually are. (I say that as having designed hundreds of logos for myself and working with a few graphic designers.)

Jul 5, 24 10:07 am  · 
1  · 

Another thing, graphic design is a broad field. Some is more oriented around brand and logo. Others not as much so it can be different results depending on the background.

Jul 8, 24 4:58 am  · 
 · 

The PA logo #1, I think I might have seen something like it back awhile. Those steps looks like lo-res bitmap graphics. There is stuff out there that's copyrighted from the era that can be a cause for trouble if it looks too similar.

Jul 8, 24 5:01 am  · 
 · 
pedroaires

Thank you for the feedback. If you take a step back and look at #1 more carefully I think you start seeing there's more to it than just "stairs". The letters themselves can be perceived as juxtaposed buildings, the voids as...voids, while the bricks also refer to the act of building. Of course stated like this everything seems a bit far-fetched, because right now, it is (the logo shouldn't have to be dissected and explained, it should communicate these ideas quick and effectively, I know). Like I said, it is a work in progress.

Jul 17, 24 3:37 pm  · 
 · 
pedroaires

No doubt it is best to work with a graphic designer, but right now I'm just naively enjoying experimenting with something that I don't consider totally out of my/our scope as architects ;)

Jul 17, 24 3:56 pm  · 
 · 
OM..

Ooo, fun!

I like 1 and 5, although they communicate dissimilar vibes. 

Keep in mind a logo is often not as useful to an architecture firm as a "workmark" might be. I think that's why I like 5. You won't ever be so recognizable as to only go by PA, so that's why I like firm names written out. 

Jul 9, 24 9:56 am  · 
 · 
pedroaires

This is true, and I have been pondering that myself. I think #5 is more iconographic/memorable/bold, but it is static. #1 opens up more possibilities

Jul 17, 24 4:02 pm  · 
 · 
pedroaires

This is true, and I have been pondering that myself. I think #5 is more iconographic/memorable/bold, but it is static, self-contained. #1 opens up more possibilities, as I can take the "brick" and apply it in different forms/compositions across other platforms (website, business card, etc). It probably will come down to me deciding whether I'd rather convey a more clear, serious and direct message, or opting for something more playful/flexible in which the name itself is not as important as the graphic aspect of it.

Jul 17, 24 4:15 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.

  • ×Search in: