NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Reflecting Absence, the planned memorial at the site of the World Trade Center, designed by Michael Arad and Peter Walker, has not come easily. It has endured more than five years of delays, scrutiny and political and sentimental maneuvering. Not surprisingly, of course, as it is a subject that requires tact and patience. The site on the southern tip of Manhattan remains, for lack of a better description, in ruins, and the expectation of what the site will be, only adds to the eagerness of seeing it completed. As a way to emphasize the importance of the memorial as a national endeavor the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation recently changed its name to the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center. Long, certainly, but with pinpoint accuracy in giving it a larger sense of relevance, beyond New York. The identity, “a creative interpretation of the pools of the Memorial itself [that] represent the strength and the ephemeral quality of our memories” has been designed by New York-based Number Seventeen. [Bigger view here]. The design is understated, with its subtle depiction of the tower footprints, both as a reminder of what once stood there and as a representation of the water that now flows through them; elegant, in its soft colors and centered arrangement; and modern, in its typographic selection, reminding us that this happened in the 21st Century. As a reflection of what design can do to convey meaning and sentiment, this identity stands strong as a complementary voice to the powerful echo of the design of the memorial.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Jeff Gill’s comment is:
That's really good. To me it feels just right.
Type:
what face is it?
I lover the ampersand, but I would move it just a touch to the left to compensate for the L's open space.
Vavoom’s comment is:
I disagree... The design is totally 'transparent'... I looks so clean to the point that I cannot feel any message or feeling behind the visual.
Would look great for a clinic or hospital though... Especially with the Greek cross that is so apparent in the negative space.
On Aug.18.2007 at 10:42 AM
Doug Nelson’s comment is:
I'm with Vavoom, the new one could really use some weight. The ampersand is a little too flourish-y as well, I think it evokes more "style" and less respect.
On Aug.18.2007 at 11:32 AM
Ty Halasz’s comment is:
I agree with Jeff. What makes it great is its subtlety. Any logo that would have used the actual outline or shape of the towers (and I love using building outlines and skylines in design) would have been too much, too boisterous.
With the footprint, the logo conveys a deeper message of how the building once was but is no more. This is accentuated by the gradient fade to white.
The logotype is not jaw-dropping, but then again, most design these days lacks jaw-dropping type. It may not be revolutionary, but it is superb, and is complemented by the text alignment.
Overall, this is an elegant logo and serves as a fitting memorial to those that died.
On Aug.18.2007 at 11:35 AM
Dennis McKeon’s comment is:
I am sure that all the 9/11 family members breathed a collective breath of relief when they heard the announcement
FOUNDATION TO BECOME NATIONAL SEPTEMBER 11
MEMORIAL & MUSEUM AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
Change Reflects Mission to Commemorate National Tragedy
New Logo and Website Launched
September 11 Tribute Exhibition to Tour Country to Raise Awareness and Support
It is amazing how priorities continue to be misplaced.
We fought for over a month to gain access to the Pit for the 9/11 ceremony and the agreement was never formerly announced.
Diane has been asking for months for answers to how many remains have been found and tested and the protocols being deployed but the mayor’s office cannot find the time to respond.
For over 6 months we have been asking about the NYPD Property Department and the alleged disappearance of nearly $1 Million and thousands of personal items from 9/11 victims and we are ignored.
They seem to have spent a lot of time (and probably money) coming up with a new name but they will not spend a minute to discuss the proper placement of names on the memorial for which they are raising money.
And yes they have time to go on a national fundraising tour. Somehow I think the following will not be part of the pitch.
-Over 1,600 remains found this year at the site of the proposed memorial.
-Not one identification from any of the 1,600 remains recovered.
-Human remains still left sitting in a landfill 6 years later.
-Families had to fight to bring the names above ground and are still fighting for their proper placement.
-75 to 80 percent of the memorial will be underground and $500,000 a year will be spent to heat the waterfalls so that the mist does not freeze during the winter.
-Millions have been spent on legal fees and only one claim has been paid to workers who have become ill as a result of their work at Ground Zero.
-And our favorite the entire memorial will be exempt from NYC Building and Fire codes.
No but they will spend millions on this national tour.
Millions that would be better spent helping the injured and sick.
Millions that would be better spent conducting a proper search and identifying the remains recovered.
Millions that would have not been necessary, had they selected a memorial design that had a little more heart and a little less architectural vision.
Well at least we got a cool new name, logo and website.
Should we have expected anything more?
On Aug.18.2007 at 11:49 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
Gawd. Sh*tcan the politics, Dennis. There are a gazillion other sites for that.
I like this logo very much. Understated and respectful. Not thrilled about the type, but it's not bad, and most of the attention is drawn to the building footprints anyway. I agree with Doug that the ampersand is a bit much, and Jeff's right that it needs to be kerned to the left a bit.
Overall: A+
On Aug.18.2007 at 01:25 PM
DC1974’s comment is:
Do not like the new logo at all. Understated to the point of not being readable. The new name sounds like it was designed by a committee. The old logo was terrific (not the type -- but the image). And thank you Dennis for sharing -- it sounds a little like conspiratorial hype and I don't know what of that has been documented or where you got your facts and figures, but I assume there is some truth in there. Truth that I wouldn't have read elsewhere.
On Aug.18.2007 at 02:02 PM
Battlefield’s comment is:
Crap, the new logo hurts my eye
its constantly focusing, its not the mist on my screen either. Not so great design, maybe acceptable for a clinic.
The type is nice, but the new image is awful(i mean not so great). I'm talking design-wise i don't need your political etc point of view.
On Aug.18.2007 at 02:28 PM
diane’s comment is:
I hate the foot prints being treated with gradients, it just doesn't sit with me well. And at the same time I understand the meaning and the choice that was made by the designers.
I like the new name. I just can't see how you would create a simple logo out of an event that had such an impact.
The type seems to be nicely done and the flourished ampersand looks a little out of place but overall, I like the type treatment.
How do you create a logo to emulate the disaster done in one day and then with it try to project hope for the future?
I don't absolutely love it but I like it. And if the general public likes it then they did a good job.
On Aug.18.2007 at 10:40 PM
erica’s comment is:
i hate it. i understand the name change and have no problem with that mouthful, but it took me far longer to read than it should have because my eyes kept flicking back to the distracting gradients.
even as a non-new yorker, i felt the towers were something i could relate to and understand. i just don't relate to those two gradients as having anything to do with anything.
On Aug.18.2007 at 10:58 PM
Arnie’s comment is:
Since September 2001 I have maintained a free and confidential "9/11 list-serv".
The "9/11 list-serv" distributes daily e-mails containing newspaper articles and other relevant information re: 9/11 issues of interest to 9/11 families, 9/11 organizations and interested individuals.
The 9/11 List-serv archives can be accessed at http://groups.google.com/group/911-list-serv
If anyone would like to 'subscribe' to this free news service - please send an e-mail to amkorotkin@aol.com with the word "subscribe" in the subject box.
Steve’s comment is:
The font seems too mechanical for my taste, and I agree about the ampersand.
However, I don't see a footprint. To me it seems more like gazing up at the sky from street level, with the view being framed by buildings that once were. Overall, I like it.
The name is ponderous, but you can't do anything about that.
On Aug.19.2007 at 09:21 AM
felix’s comment is:
i dig both these marks.
the previous mark , designed by Gene Grossman, was tasteful and well executed.
ditto the new one, but with less heroics, more religiosity. I see the foortprint illuminated with a cross. tasteful.
let's hope it stays Gulliani-free.
On Aug.19.2007 at 03:44 PM
Leslie’s comment is:
I also don't see the "footprints" of the towers. Unfortunately, I see something that is most certainly unintentional (at least, I hope so) in the design of the footprints, but is there for me nonetheless... I see military fighter planes. Now, I know zero about our military and their planes, but this is what came to me instantly. Certainly if the layperson sees this in the design, couldn't someone on the design committee conceive that this negative connotation could be derived? (The obvious thought being that planes might not be a good thing to incorporate into a 9/11 logo.) Furthermore, if it is a 9/11 memorial and not just a WTC memorial (which seems to be the direction they are taking it), where is the tribute to the victims of the related tragedies of the same day, at the Pentagon and Flight 93? Please don't misunderstand me here; I was very stricken by the 9/11 tragedy. I have been several times to NYC and love the city. I felt the same horror and grief as many in our country and all over the world at what we witnessed that day. My point is just that in possibly trying to be very simplistic in this logo design, the designers may have overlooked something that was so very obvious.
On Aug.19.2007 at 04:15 PM
Dale’s comment is:
For me, this works because it's a smart, graphic representation of the memorial's key features: the two square reflecting pools.
The logo translates the site's landscape architecture (as it will someday appear) into an elegant mark. That's enough. Unlike the memorial or the museum itself, it's not the logo's job to encapsulate the tragedy or help us understand it.
Far less elegant: The new name. It truly does reek of committee-think.
On Aug.19.2007 at 10:11 PM
Chris Blow’s comment is:
the ampersand makes it.
On Aug.19.2007 at 10:59 PM
Leanne Johnson’s comment is:
It's very apt - quiet, reflective, subtle, but still strong in its statement. However, I don't understand how in the space of only 5 years the WTCMF has changed its name, and therefore the logo. Couldn't they think of an appropriate title the first time? There have been so many iterations of plans and organisations regarding the WTC since 9/11 that it starts to get confusing.
But the logo, at last, is perfect. I hope they don't change it again...
On Aug.20.2007 at 04:48 AM
Blake’s comment is:
To be fair, I believe it almost impossible to capture such a horrific event in one symbol. Almost. The project itself has been plagued by disastrous financial problems and politics... branding the memorial makes it that much more difficult. Penn & Teller had a special (I believe...) about the efforts to rebuild 9/11, including the memorial, on their show Bullshit. Whether you agree with them or not, they present some facts that are hard to ignore. But that's a separate issue, I guess... leading back into the brand--knowing more about the memorial itself leads me to appreciate this brand less. The idea of the memorial I agree with, and *something* is needed. I suppose the logo evokes the towers somewhat...but the sheer brutality of the act is left out. It feels transparent, almost lofty. I'd rather feel it honestly--raw and brutal. I don't think this is something we can sugar-coat. One can argue it's trying to express hope...
On Aug.20.2007 at 08:07 AM
L.Vazquez’s comment is:
Anyone who was there after Sept. 11, through the fall of '01 and winter of '02 can relate to this piece.
On Aug.20.2007 at 08:10 AM
D. JanTausch’s comment is:
I like the new name change. Foundations remind me of cocktail parties, and people in suits. This is a much more serious thing than that. I hate the gradient usage on both logos. More so on the new design. I try to not use gradients in my designs. Customers (just about everyone thinks they are artists) come to me with gradient laden designs and logos they want "cleaned" up. First thing I do is get rid of gradients. I always know the next step is they want t-shirts and such made up with their new logo. I try to explain to them I'm saving them money by getting rid of them.
On Aug.20.2007 at 10:18 AM
Moriarty’s comment is:
My comments on the design only (and nothing about America's approach to foreign policy and terrorism) as that's what this site is about.
I think it just looks really poor (the old one looks a bit better, but I'm no big fan of that), although the new colours do seem right.
The name is waaaaay too long (suspect it's a major approval by committee number), is it about all the events on 9/11 or just those at the WTC (as others have asked – at least the old one was decisive in that)? Could it not have been made shorter to something like "September 11 Memorial" (what else is needed, everyone knows what happened)?
I understand the footprint idea (although it does exclude other events on that day a bit, but I do accept that the WTC was the focus of the attacks/news/coverage and probably the first thing that most people think of when 9/11 is mentioned) but not why it's been done in a gradient to just a corner, with it like that rather than the whole footprint I think you lose the idea of the footprint of the two towers.
The type itself looks clunky in terms of layout (although I do like the typeface) – I really hate type resized by line to take up the same amount of space. The heirarchy is currently line 2, line 1, line 3, just the wrong focus, I don't think that 'Memorial & Museum' are the most important words in the name.
Having the word 'National' in the name I'm also not sure is a great idea, kind of assumes only American citizens were there although the WTC held a large number of foreign companies that had foreign nationals there on secondment – it seems to be excluding them (and indeed anyone non American in general) from the memorial.
All-in-all rather disapointed in it – would've expected something better and more fitting.
On Aug.20.2007 at 11:22 AM
exigent’s comment is:
Intentions and good happy-feelings aside, this site is about logos.... And this one is crap for the same reasons that so many of you have deemed others as crap. It has gradients, and most of the frequenters hate gradients, but throw it on a 9/11 logo and you love it?! Thats just BS. Listen, my heart goes out to those who have lost and those who have emotional ties to NYC, but c'mon! This logo is pathetic. The name is far too long and the elements to this logo are abysmal.
A logo works or it doesn't work. The idea of using the two tower's locations to one-another is superb, but the execution is terrible. I feel my attention being so consumed by the "ghostly" shapes above and below, that I lose interest in actually reading what I am looking at.
-Dissapointing.
On Aug.20.2007 at 11:29 AM
Ryan’s comment is:
Conceptually it is nice. But that's about all that works for it: the concept. The execution of the concept is a bit poor and, as exigent said, it's bad for the same reasons every other logo people lambaste is bad: it's not graphic, full of gradients, mousetype, kerning, etc. Try embroidering this one.
On Aug.20.2007 at 12:25 PM
EBrackett’s comment is:
I like the concept, and when I read the term "Reflecting Absence" I could see that: it's ephemeral, tranparent, etc. But I don't understand the footprints. I think the footprints are supposed to be the part that are the gradients. But my eye is more drawn to the negative space--which also could be the footprints or a cross-like shape.
I also have concerns about how this would hold up in many applications. Not even the always-suggested fax. How about just a Newspaper where ink coverage varies so much? Could fade to nothing or end up like 2 triangles.
On Aug.20.2007 at 12:43 PM
Mike’s comment is:
I like the new logo I think it has a stillness and solemnity about it that is appropriate.
I think they captured the concept really well. When I look at the logo I can see both footprints and the pools, but the first thing I saw was the tops of the two towers as if I were standing on the ground between both of them; which is a nice nod to the past and the future.
On Aug.20.2007 at 02:37 PM
andrew’s comment is:
I like the concept of relating to the footprint and the reflecting pools, but I don't think its executed well.
I did not see two squares. The gradients seem more like shadows than solid shapes which, to me, create the illusion that the white space is the solid shape, and that makes it confusing to me.
I think the gradients confused the concept. Make the gradient into a solid shape and you've solved my issue.
On Aug.20.2007 at 03:01 PM
Daniel V’s comment is:
Does anybody remember how much some artists, designers, and architects used to dislike the Twin Towers back in the days? They often refered to them as plain and tasteless... I am starting to believe it... 'cause this logo just shows that: big does not make it grand.
...
Daniel V’s comment is:
Does anybody remember how much some artists, designers, and architects used to dislike the Twin Towers back in the days? They often refered to them as plain and tasteless... I am starting to believe it... 'cause this logo just shows that: big does not make it grand.
...
I Heart DM’s comment is:
I don't think any of us can say anything about this mark until the One Who Knows All and Tells All about marks, identity and the righteousness of Barry Bonds' home run title can weigh in. I Refuse to Consider anyone's Comments Until the Almighty FRANK BRIGGS aka THE DESIGN MAVEN tells us what to think.
We await Your Pronouncement from On High, oh Maven of Design.
On Aug.20.2007 at 09:24 PM
brd’s comment is:
Yawn. Understated is one thing. Nothing is something else. This is hanging out right there near nothing. It is prose--definitely not poetry. I'll give this one about 25 seconds until they decide to give it another face lift. Too bad, too.
On Aug.20.2007 at 10:49 PM
drew kora’s comment is:
The ampersand is beautiful though. : )
On Aug.21.2007 at 09:13 AM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
why redesign a logo when they can't even manage to do anything to the site? hello big hole in the ground, nice to see you every day.
On Aug.21.2007 at 12:36 PM
the noise’s comment is:
must be only typographic, all known there was the towers, but the memory of the people who died there is present...
On Aug.21.2007 at 01:33 PM
Owen Troy’s comment is:
The typeface is Apex New (or possibly Apex Sans) by chester Jenkins (with Rick Valicenti?) for thirstype/vllg.
On Aug.22.2007 at 12:47 AM
adam’s comment is:
i like the ethereal, almost haunting effect of the logo. but it still seems to give a nod towards the future.
the new name is a rather awkward, unweidy, and seems like the words are jumbled/out of order.
why did they scrap the old logo?
On Aug.22.2007 at 05:05 PM
Ben’s comment is:
I bet it'd be a lot of fun to hear the designers pitch this logo, as I'm sure it's well thought-out and symbolic and all that other jazz that's necessary for a mark to be spectacular.
Still, I'm with the handful of others who just have a hard time looking at it. It might be meaningful, but it makes me dizzy; constant refocusing and a need to find a cross in the negative space make it too distracting and disorienting for me.
On Aug.23.2007 at 04:33 AM
Design’s comment is:
That logo...is a tragedy.
On Aug.24.2007 at 02:42 AM
Red Sox Jim’s comment is:
I don't like it.
The old one symbolized hope, and that we as Americans were standing strong after 9/11. This new one symbolizes diddly crap.
On Sep.09.2007 at 09:29 AM
Chester Jenkins’s comment is:
The type used is Apex Sans, or perhaps Apex New with the alternate ampersand. (Amongst its improvements, Apex New features a more traditional ampersand, as well as the previous ampersand from Apex Sans, which is used in the logotype under discussion.
On Sep.09.2007 at 10:02 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
I Heart DM
Let me Comb through the Transparent SARCASM of this BEEF EATER.
SOUNDS LIKE PENIS ENVY TO ME!!!!!
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
On Sep.13.2007 at 09:30 AM
alphadog’s comment is:
mu·se·um: /myuˈziəm/ A building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed.
I have a problem with the word "museum". It equates to me to the objectification of the tragedy. Just the title "September 11 Memorial" would have said enough. KISS, people, KISS.
As for the rest, I agree with most people that the gradients and their placement makes my eyes roam all over and get dizzy.
@DesignMaven: Why do you answer your own posts? It's pretty obvious that "I Heart DM" and "DesignMaven" are the same people.
On Oct.04.2007 at 11:14 AM
Don’s comment is:
Armin wrote:
"As a reflection of what design can do to convey meaning and sentiment, this identity stands strong as a complementary voice to the powerful echo of the design of the memorial."
What the hell are you talking about Armin?
convey meaning and sentiment?
powerful echo?
How?
It's a bland logo Armin, BLAND, BLAND, BLAND!
On Oct.08.2007 at 07:51 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
