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.
newbie.Phronesis
Jun 30, 24 2:19 pm
To be honest - first three feel corporate, at least to me. Logo 5 or maybe 4 on white background might work best?
pedroaires
Jul 1, 24 6:34 pm
Thank you, that's helpful feedback! I think so, but
#4 seems to me now a bit 'weak' in comparison with the other options.
b3tadine[sutures]
Jun 30, 24 2:43 pm
I like #3
monosierra
Jun 30, 24 4:50 pm
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.
pedroaires
Jul 1, 24 5:21 pm
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!
logon'slogin
Jun 30, 24 6:33 pm
Both #5s are thumbs-up bulldogs. Somethings clients would like.
pedroaires
Jul 1, 24 5:15 pm
That's good to know!
reallynotmyname
Jun 30, 24 7:18 pm
#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.
pedroaires
Jul 1, 24 5:15 pm
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.
Chad Miller
Jul 1, 24 9:58 am
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.
pedroaires
Jul 1, 24 6:42 pm
Thanks! They definitely do, although I'm trying to convey that just enough without being too literal about it. Will keep that in mind!
monosierra
Jul 1, 24 9:32 pm
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.
pedroaires
Jul 4, 24 2:26 pm
No doubt. The logo is just a part of what should look like and be a coherent whole. Thank you.
J G
Jul 3, 24 5:26 pm
#1 is the best
Wood Guy
Jul 5, 24 10:07 am
#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.)
Richard Balkins
Jul 8, 24 4:58 am
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.
Richard Balkins
Jul 8, 24 5:01 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.
pedroaires
Jul 17, 24 3:37 pm
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.
pedroaires
Jul 17, 24 3:56 pm
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
;)
Wood Guy
Jul 18, 24 11:03 am
I understand the intent in #1 but it still just looks like bitmappy letters to me. It doesn't say "architect;" if anything, it says game designer. In my opinion, and you know what opinions are worth ;-)
pedroaires
Aug 4, 24 5:44 pm
Of course. I totally see what you mean ;)
OM..
Jul 9, 24 9:56 am
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.
pedroaires
Jul 17, 24 4:02 pm
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
pedroaires
Jul 17, 24 4:15 pm
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.
mission_critical
Jul 18, 24 11:59 pm
honestly a logo doesn’t help you get business. It just makes you feel like you’re playing the game of business. Having business cards does make you appear more credible so I suggest picking something from moo.com or vistaprint.com. I suggest spending less time on graphic design and more time on learning how to make an architectural firm profitable. Then revisit this once you’ve gotten your value proposition down.
pedroaires
Aug 4, 24 6:07 pm
Very true. The logo is a small part of the big picture. I know how fairly easy it is to get lost in these 'details', as opposed to 'getting your hands dirty' and tackle the most challenging aspects of it that can actually make it work. Nonetheless I do believe multiple things can be carried on simultaneously and at a steady pace, without losing sight of these priorities that you well mention. I also believe that a good logo can indeed help the business. But like I said, it plays a small part, and it is not in the least the main thing to be worried about.
Thank you for reminding me of this, and for the website suggestions. I have actually used Moo before, and it was quite a positive experience!
mission_critical
Aug 4, 24 10:41 pm
I think using your name or some combo of first and last is your cue here. If you just want something to drag on the business card template, I’ve generated the image below. I would trace it in illustrator and adjust the kerning. Your branding as a small solo architect is your reputation, not your logo. but if you want to give the first impression, go bold.
Chad Miller
Aug 5, 24 3:16 pm
Vote for Pedro?
Donna Sink
Aug 5, 24 10:26 pm
I really like both 2 and 4. Both are abstract but very identifiable as letters once you realize it.
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.
No doubt. The logo is just a part of what should look like and be a coherent whole. Thank you.
#1 is the best
#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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)
I understand the intent in #1 but it still just looks like bitmappy letters to me. It doesn't say "architect;" if anything, it says game designer. In my opinion, and you know what opinions are worth ;-)
Of course. I totally see what you mean ;)
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.
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
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.
honestly a logo doesn’t help you get business. It just makes you feel like you’re playing the game of business. Having business cards does make you appear more credible so I suggest picking something from moo.com or vistaprint.com. I suggest spending less time on graphic design and more time on learning how to make an architectural firm profitable. Then revisit this once you’ve gotten your value proposition down.
Very true. The logo is a small part of the big picture. I know how fairly easy it is to get lost in these 'details', as opposed to 'getting your hands dirty' and tackle the most challenging aspects of it that can actually make it work. Nonetheless I do believe multiple things can be carried on simultaneously and at a steady pace, without losing sight of these priorities that you well mention. I also believe that a good logo can indeed help the business. But like I said, it plays a small part, and it is not in the least the main thing to be worried about.
Thank you for reminding me of this, and for the website suggestions. I have actually used Moo before, and it was quite a positive experience!
I think using your name or some combo of first and last is your cue here. If you just want something to drag on the business card template, I’ve generated the image below. I would trace it in illustrator and adjust the kerning. Your branding as a small solo architect is your reputation, not your logo. but if you want to give the first impression, go bold.
Vote for Pedro?
I really like both 2 and 4. Both are abstract but very identifiable as letters once you realize it.