Jump to content

Vancouver MLS Logo - Cinema Public House - Tuesday June 8th @ 7:30pm

masster

By masster
in Major League Soccer

Recommended Posts

masster Experienced

masster

Posted
Posted

Tuesday June 8th - 7:30pm

Cinema Public House

901 Granville Street

As we celebrate one of the first steps towards MLS on Tuesday, the man leading the way, Whitecaps CEO Paul Barber, will be having an exclusive Q&A with Vancouver Soccer Fans. This formal session will be taking place that night and will incorporate submitted questions. So if you have something that you would like Paul to answer, please post it here, or you can e-mail it to events@vancouversouthsiders.ca. You can include your name if you like but this is not necessary. I doubt we will be able to get to all of them but we will do our best.

This event is open to all that woul like to attend. Please RSVP so we can provide the pub with an idea regarding numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply
tmcmurph Newbie

tmcmurph

Posted
Posted

So bye bye to the wave whitecaps and hello to the mountain whitecaps. The 3 diamond shapes are nice with the top half being white (mountains with snow capped peaks) and lower half being light blue (reflections in the water). Not as cool as the Pittsburgh Steelers 3 inverted diamond logo but then that one is hard to beat (best in all pro sports IMHO). The full name has returned as well "Vancouver Whitecaps FC"

10,000 season tickets already sold and they are capping it at 16,500. That could leave 5-10 thousand for walkups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Obinna Grand Master

Obinna

Posted
Posted
Somewhat Hamburgesque.

yes, very bundesliga of vancouver. I think its original to MLS and its nice to see a club move away from the "shield" look. At first though I never liked it but after looking at it I really like it. In the top 5 for sure, along with TFC, LAG, and DCU. WAY better than Seattles, which is very dissapointing, especially their font.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tmcmurph Newbie

tmcmurph

Posted
Posted

The simplicity of it grows on you quickly. I was somewhat taken aback because I have always thought the 79 version was a great logo (and it is). But the subtlety of the new one with the white top and blue bottom and symmetrical layout really does appeal to me now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unnamed Trialist Grand Master

Unnamed Trialist

Posted
Posted

This logo has some good ideas but also some serious problems. I don't want to bore folks here but I'll try a quick critique. As if a student of mine did it (I don't teach Graphic Design, but do give a course in Design Analysis and Critique at a degree-granting school, so I am in my rights to take this on).

First, the typography makes no sense. Why is Vancouver smaller than both Whitecaps and FC? The impression you get is simply that the narrower part of the mountain or "teepee" in the middle forces the "Vancouver" smaller, allows for the bigger "Whitecaps" in the middle where it's wider. The tiering is not justified, all they are doing is filling space as an afterthought.

Unless you think that the key is the nickname and the city less so. Fine. But why then is "FC" so huge? After all, FC is like Co Ltd, like Esq, it is an identifier that is less important than the nickname and the city. Answer: to fill in the space below, to try to kill some of the empty triangle supposedly reflecting the top teepee. Very questionable.

Remember that FC was added as an adornment to Whitecaps when the team pulled Vancouver from the name, probably because of the fact they were playing in Burnaby. Now that the team in MLS will be in Van again, they could perfectly well lose the FC, it serves no purpose anymore.

The typeface is uninteresting, but that is better left aside. We could argue about better faces for years.

Second, Vancouver does have sea and mountains, but the name is Whitecaps. A lot of people don't understand the term, even if you explain to them they are a bit dull on it. The old logo "explained" the name, however outdated and stylized. This one does not. It is in fact confusing, as it suggests snow covered peaks being the caps. Which is fine, but they aren't. They are not whitecaps, and these peaks are all white, not just the tops. So they are not even mountains "capped" with white. So the designer is mixing terms both visually and in the graphics. And you can't tell me they are clear. It is actually a huge mess.

An example. If you look at it you see that the triangles at the bottom are a V and W, overlapped, Vancouver Whitecaps. Perfect. But I think the designer did not even see it, the same as he did not perceive that the top reads A M, or M A, depending how you do the Rorschach. It is an inadvertent and unintentional V W then, and unused, unexploited by the designer. So it looks like a half-azzed attempt at something that was not resolved. Now if it was intentional, it has to be more explicit. For example: using a typeface that had a similar flare as the W below, angling out wider, to make the W in Whitecaps and the V in Vancouver more similar to the graphic elements.

The diamond or peak shapes. I think it is fine for them to be symmetrical, fair enough though quite rigid. They did not have to be closed off, that is also visually harsh (leave a band open across where the top and bottom meet, on the outside borderline, and it breathes without losing the overall scheme).

And what is the idea of the bottom triangles? Reflections? Fine, but reflections on the water are not like that. First, they run along a horizontal plane and reflect another plane rising out of the horizontal at an obtuse angle away from the viewer, the mountains rising up and away, the sea at your feet. The reflection is closer, and fatter, the real mountain is in the distance and falls away. None of that is suggested correctly.

The line where the top and bottom half are divided is just filler where the words go, so the apparent attempt at the reflection is weakened, the mirror does not touch the edge of the object reflected (a picky prof would even argue the lettering should also be reflected if the bottom half is reflective).

Apart from that, the reflection is undulating. Like a wave. Waves on the water undulate, they roll, and on English Bay (not False Creek where BC Place is) they have these interesting bits of white foam on the top when the wind comes up a bit, called Whitecaps. Whitecaps shattering the mirroring surface of the sea, rather beautiful image.

This is all completely ignored. The peaks in "reflection" could have been rounded, shortened, fattened, rolling, or even you could have made the lines waver. It could have been geometric, or symmetrical just the same. Many crests are like that, they do not have to be so rigid and literal. Stylized mountains as triangles, stylized sea and wavy ones. Not done, probably to not break the double diamond effect top and bottom.

A rigid concept that was not flexible enough in the designers mind to be altered to take in a richer reading. You get the sense that the designer just wanted to resolve the visual part and close it off as simply as possible, without taking on the complexity of the assignment.

It should have been sent back, it is mediocre at best and not that well resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Admin Veteran

Admin

Posted
Posted
This logo has some good ideas but also some serious problems. I don't want to bore folks here but I'll try a quick critique. As if a student of mine did it (I don't teach Graphic Design, but do give a course in Design Analysis and Critique at a degree-granting school, so I am in my rights to take this on).

First, the typography makes no sense. Why is Vancouver smaller than both Whitecaps and FC? The impression you get is simply that the narrower part of the mountain or "teepee" in the middle forces the "Vancouver" smaller, allows for the bigger "Whitecaps" in the middle where it's wider. The tiering is not justified, all they are doing is filling space as an afterthought.

Unless you think that the key is the nickname and the city less so. Fine. But why then is "FC" so huge? After all, FC is like Co Ltd, like Esq, it is an identifier that is less important than the nickname and the city. Answer: to fill in the space below, to try to kill some of the empty triangle supposedly reflecting the top teepee. Very questionable.

Remember that FC was added as an adornment to Whitecaps when the team pulled Vancouver from the name, probably because of the fact they were playing in Burnaby. Now that the team in MLS will be in Van again, they could perfectly well lose the FC, it serves no purpose anymore.

The typeface is uninteresting, but that is better left aside. We could argue about better faces for years.

Second, Vancouver does have sea and mountains, but the name is Whitecaps. A lot of people don't understand the term, even if you explain to them they are a bit dull on it. The old logo "explained" the name, however outdated and stylized. This one does not. It is in fact confusing, as it suggests snow covered peaks being the caps. Which is fine, but they aren't. They are not whitecaps, and these peaks are all white, not just the tops. So they are not even mountains "capped" with white. So the designer is mixing terms both visually and in the graphics. And you can't tell me they are clear. It is actually a huge mess.

An example. If you look at it you see that the triangles at the bottom are a V and W, overlapped, Vancouver Whitecaps. Perfect. But I think the designer did not even see it, the same as he did not perceive that the top reads A M, or M A, depending how you do the Rorschach. It is an inadvertent and unintentional V W then, and unused, unexploited by the designer. So it looks like a half-azzed attempt at something that was not resolved. Now if it was intentional, it has to be more explicit. For example: using a typeface that had a similar flare as the W below, angling out wider, to make the W in Whitecaps and the V in Vancouver more similar to the graphic elements.

The diamond or peak shapes. I think it is fine for them to be symmetrical, fair enough though quite rigid. They did not have to be closed off, that is also visually harsh (leave a band open across where the top and bottom meet, on the outside borderline, and it breathes without losing the overall scheme).

And what is the idea of the bottom triangles? Reflections? Fine, but reflections on the water are not like that. First, they run along a horizontal plane and reflect another plane rising out of the horizontal at an obtuse angle away from the viewer, the mountains rising up and away, the sea at your feet. The reflection is closer, and fatter, the real mountain is in the distance and falls away. None of that is suggested correctly.

The line where the top and bottom half are divided is just filler where the words go, so the apparent attempt at the reflection is weakened, the mirror does not touch the edge of the object reflected (a picky prof would even argue the lettering should also be reflected if the bottom half is reflective).

Apart from that, the reflection is undulating. Like a wave. Waves on the water undulate, they roll, and on English Bay (not False Creek where BC Place is) they have these interesting bits of white foam on the top when the wind comes up a bit, called Whitecaps. Whitecaps shattering the mirroring surface of the sea, rather beautiful image.

This is all completely ignored. The peaks in "reflection" could have been rounded, shortened, fattened, rolling, or even you could have made the lines waver. It could have been geometric, or symmetrical just the same. Many crests are like that, they do not have to be so rigid and literal. Stylized mountains as triangles, stylized sea and wavy ones. Not done, probably to not break the double diamond effect top and bottom.

A rigid concept that was not flexible enough in the designers mind to be altered to take in a richer reading. You get the sense that the designer just wanted to resolve the visual part and close it off as simply as possible, without taking on the complexity of the assignment.

It should have been sent back, it is mediocre at best and not that well resolved.

Very well said, and I completely agree.

It's close, but misses the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SthMelbRed Veteran

SthMelbRed

Posted
Posted

I think some of these criticisms suggest the there are people out there who expect a club badge to give them everything, then roll them over for a handjob, to boot. It's a very good badge which will grow on people over time (moreso everytime a newer, ****ter, badge is unveiled by another club). I would have liked '86' to replace the 'FC' but we can't all get everything we want, can we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tmcmurph Newbie

tmcmurph

Posted
Posted

Unnamed Trialist you have too much time on your hands. It is a crest a logo and it looks great. Your points might be correct for an art class but I think you analyze things too much. Have a beer and/or puff and it will grow on you.

:)

No shield, no ball and a nice clean symmetrical layout with the full city name. Yes keep the FC. It is what they are, a football club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
earlimus Newbie

earlimus

Posted
Posted

I really like the crest. The trailist has some good points, but like SthMelbRed says, it can't give us all a handjob.

For me, I would have loved to have seen Vancouver go with Whitecaps SC, thereby showing Toronto who has the biggest cajones in Canada, and sending everyone on one particular side of the soccer-football fence into a bloodthirsty rage.

Montreal, the ball is officially in your court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ray Rising Star

ray

Posted
Posted

The club is emphisizing the mountains rather than the water with this logo. The logo itself is fine but to me it seems to go against the team's history. At the very least they should respect their past and maintain some kind of wave imagery on the shoulder crest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vic Newbie

Vic

Posted
Posted

The good: clean, professional, businesslike.

The bad: it's pretty busy and complex for logo design. All art is unfinished but this has an unusual sense of incompleteness, like a design approach they never really solved and just made the best of.

"Not bad" by MLS standards whatever that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
strobe_z Newbie

strobe_z

Posted
Posted
Unnamed Trialist you have too much time on your hands. It is a crest a logo and it looks great. Your points might be correct for an art class but I think you analyze things too much. Have a beer and/or puff and it will grow on you.

:)

No shield, no ball and a nice clean symmetrical layout with the full city name. Yes keep the FC. It is what they are, a football club.

Despite the similie, I'm going springboard off this. The problem is that not enough people believe that points like unnammed trialist (who gets my vote for best screen nickname as well!) are of concern. After all, it's just some drawings. That's a slippery slope that leads all the way to "my kid's good with computers, let him design our logo". I brought this up over in the FC Edmonton thread. Design matters, it conveys meaning on several levels and good design ultimately isn't really a matter of opinion.

Vancouver's new crest isn't extremely bad, but it's not great either. Unammed trialist makes some very astute observations. I think what I'd like to add though is that they seem to have missed the spiritual mark in terms of their implementation. I can see how assigning a double meaning to "whitecaps" (i.e. mountains and waves) would give a more well-rounded representation of Vancouver... but they've simply shifted the focus to the mountains (and even then the moutains in the crest aren't exactly "white-capped" either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...