Disgruntled designers endorse themselves, but not Super City logo
Following the release of the winning Auckland Super City logo last week, the Designers Institute of New Zealand (DINZ), which was already fairly bitter about the whole crowd-sourced process, doesn’t think it’s too late to salvage some respectability, but only if the new Auckland Transition Agency engages a professional design agency to ensure it is developed as a “sophisticated, contemporary and effective” visual identity and subsequent brand for the city.
Sean McGarry, president of DINZ, the national organisation representing professional designers, says choosing a new Super City logo through a public competition was not a process DINZ had ever “envisaged or endorsed”. But now the logo design has been announced, there’s nothing it can really do about it, so the next crusade is to show how important it is to employ professional designers to translate the design into a more current and distinctive logo.
McGarry says visual identity and brand development was the result of complex strategy work and design iteration.
“Good design, while it might appear to be simple, is usually the result of a process of in-depth research, conceptual development and refinement and then implementation of the finalised design as a complete visual identity and branding programme.”
McGarry cites the example of the new Melbourne logo released in July, 2009, a stylized M which can be used in a number of colour ways and identity lock-ups depending on its application. The logo was designed by leading design and brand identity company, Landor, and was the result of a separate research process before the design work was even undertaken.
“It is dynamic, effective cutting edge design backed up by a robust design process,” he says.
While dinz says the new Auckland Supercity logo had some distinctive features, such as the environmental and cultural themes of pohutakawa and koro, it also says the design was generic and influenced by 70’s modernist design, “definitely not contemporary and doesn’t make a strong statement about Auckland, its people and its future”.
There’s also been some controversy over the logo’s similarity to the Auckland Regional Parks logo, although the winner of the competition Jim Dean, claims innocence. Added to that, it also looks quite similar to the Wilford school logo.
You can check out some of the design community’s mainly positive responses to the logo here.



























David MacGregor
April 27, 2010
If Auckland wants a feijoa flower as its 'logo', then it should have a feijoa flower for its 'logo'. Me I'd have gone with something typographic. (but only after a process of in-depth research, conceptual development and refinement and then implementation of the finalised design as a complete visual identity branding programme) I think Murray Hill Bold would capture the essence of this fine city I call home.
Samantha Jane
April 28, 2010
If they wanted to involve the people of Auckland like they say they did, they should have at least given the public a chance to judge the top 20 on the Auckland City Council Logo website. Similar to how the people at design21 (Social Design Network) do.
http://www.design21sdn.com/competitions/20
I'm sure the public would have appreciated the chance to have their say. I know i would have.
mick
April 28, 2010
DINZ Sucks
Duncan Stuart
April 30, 2010
This whole planning by committee apprach really sucks. I notice all financial aspects of the Super City architecture are being kept well away from the public eye. Mr Paranoia (my alter ego here) believes that we're being fed the logo debate and the whole party central wharf refit brouhaha as a cynical ploy to avert our eyes from the real outrage. The process is all wrong.
Did I miss something?
April 30, 2010
Is that the best we can do? I don't get a sense of Auckland let alone 'Super City' out of this logo. Unless we want visitors to think we're some kind of Herbal Tea! Auckland is a melting pot of culture and diversity. What a shame a clever designer could not encapsulate that.
Jo Anderson
May 4, 2010
Before I begin, I’m in marketing not design. People think that a logo is something anyone can do. However, a logo is the visual reflection of a strategy and positioning for an entity – and understanding that takes someone with expertise. The means you have to PAY for that expertise. It’s the most important of marketing tools. Anyone who has worked with a poorly strategised logo knows the frustration it causes. A logo has to deliver for tomorrow as well as today. Unfortunately this one is already dated.
Samantha Jane
May 4, 2010
What does the Auckland public and designers/marketers across NZ think of this brand?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49862563@N05/4576987905/
Wouldn't mind the critique …Plus I was sure the criteria was met here…