8 thoughts on “New City Logo

  1. Phew, I like it too but was too scared to say anything in case a mob with
    burning torches and pointy sticks came after me.

  2. Meh, change isn’t always bad.

    I understand their reasoning, and if it’s provided for in the budget and they filter it in slowly as they’ve said they will (assuming they’ll stand by what they say and all) then really, maybe it is time.

    I see nothing wrong with it though, it seems to have a happy little South African vibe to it. I was never the biggest fan of the old logo and it’s silly little mountain anyway, because I hear about that mountain way too much.

    So little complain. Such fail. Must be old. Wow. (Talking about me, not you)

  3. Tara > Yes. If it’s budgeted for (and I’m sure it is) than where’s the issue? I think it’s hilarious that so many people are up in arms with the whole “it’s our money” and “you’re our servants” thing. Yes, they’re right, but where were they when council decided how much to spend on sewage repair work in Table View or new streetlights in Phillipi?
    But suddenly, the press make a meal out of something and it’s Outrage Athlete central.

  4. hi 🙂 this is nicely written as always and I have watched the City’s promo video..

    I totally get what City of Cae Town does strategically and politically to align with their vision and the IDP and long-term interventions…

    My hesitance is NOT that they are doing a new logo, nor that they are using little if any new budget, but much more with the misalignment of their message (“Together”) with HOW they are going about this process of design – especially in WDC2014: The logo came as surprise to almost everyone except a tiny inner circle. .. it is not aligned to the very intention of collaboration, right…? it is simply a missed opportunity to take citizens on a journey with you, with integrity… Gosh, they have not even voted on it yet ans ALREADY took down the logo from the Civic Centre today. For maintenance? Don’t think so.

    and yes, it IS public money where many citizens STILL require service – but the reality is, it is not sustainable as success brings more people requiring service… so “together” is all that could work…

    We have a few more important priorities imo but I am no Councillor to push for these nstead in the form of increased expenditure of discretionary grants to wards maybe – whether we spend future or present money on the budget makes no difference, the allocation does send a message (very much like renaming streets when a town does not have street lights)…

    BUT how together are we? hopefully the logo shows an aspiration of a City to bring us together from all angles and celebrate diversity – just a pity they did not use the design process to show exactly that (rather than tell)…

  5. Dorette duP S > Oi! Don’t you come around here with your sensible arguments and reasonable criticism!
    Seriously though, I do agree in part. My issue with that the “open” design process is that it invariably ends up with a public vote and we get something rubbish (you only have to look at the NMB bridges to see that) or the council makes the final decision and then we get the same criticism of the process – that it’s all a council thing anyway.
    But leave this stuff to the experts. That’s what we elected them to do. They don’t open the process of – for example – their plan formation for refuse collection from commercial premises in Salt River, but no-one ever whines about that.
    I think that the CoCT is one of the best that I’ve encountered at communication (as they should be with all the “new” avenues open to them); they’ll listen to ideas, but if you’re going to let all the citizens make all the decisions, then why are we electing and paying for people trained to do these jobs, to do these jobs?

  6. 6000 > absolutely agree on the value and sensibility of getting experts to do the job of such importance – and believe that a reputable design agency is EXACTLY what was needed to get a fantastic new brand (if we then had to, in order to communicate change of strat) but personally I would have put a little more confidence in the “wisdom of crowds” by getting them to submit ideas, symbolism, messaging, core values to inform the logo and slogan – and you know what, my guess is they would have ended up with much the same direction, but much more buy-in from ordinary citizens and more debate on what is important in this beautiful city – togetherness. Why did we not see more public notifications of the tender process for instance – too many smaller, awesome brand professionals and experts! stood no chance in my opinion.

    It remains the issue of exclusion in favour of experts and participation that irks me so. It smacks a bit too much of “we know the best for you” as a “nanny state” and counter the very ethos they try to instill. For me, a lost opportunity from a City that should care a bit more about the creative abilities of their constituents.

  7. Dorette duP S > Yep. Could certainly have been handled better, although I still disagree on the need for public participation in all and everything. However, while I suppose that should be exceptions, I think that this, the public face of the city, is hugely important and should be left up to the experts. .
    As for the not adhering to the “Together” payoff line, while being a great idea, that line wouldn’t have existed if it wasn’t for the work of the small design team, so I’m not sure that using it as a reason to include everyone in this process works.

    Leave a Reply