Similar to the University of Surrey, the colour scheme and very wide open font combine to create a bit of a 70s modernist feel. I can imagine it fixed on a brutalist campus building.
There is detailed explanation of the crest
Awarded University status in 1992, the University has used the trusty combination of a modern sans-serif combined with a nicely simplified crest. The typeface looks like a Univers – Futura combination, all kicked off with a very pointed ‘A’.
The font seems to be Standard CT Extra Bold. It’s a chunky Helvetica lookalike, that is pretty compressed and solid.
The overall effect is a very confident,perhaps strident exclamation of the University, it’s location and it’s name. Such a dense block of type is offset a little by the stylised heraldic lion, taken from the coat of arms of Simon de Montfont. The choice of an all uppercase treatment also neatly sidesteps any confusion about the proper capitalisation of de Montfort.
Ultimately, the overall effect is of a no-nonsense and confident approach, eschewing more restrained and traditional approaches.
A two part logo with some neat and clear text on the right, accompanied by an unusual combination on the left. In the text the University location is stressed in a relaxed sans serif, and supplemented by three words which I would assume to a tag line. Unfortunate that the logo doesn’t especially reinforce the tag line. It consists of a shape like a rosette ribbon. Perhaps alluding to a seal or certificate. Like the ribbon one might see attached to an official seal of some kind. Across this is place a squiggly w, reversed out of the white of the ribbon. I find the w a little awkward – it’s neither elegant or sweeping like calligraphy, or rough and vibrant like a textured handwritten w could be.
When one thinks of the classic fun that can be had with one of the alphabets more jagged shapes, the w here adds little.
A green/blue on top a blue background doesn’t provide much contrast the graphic element of this logo, which is 3 mountains represented in a bold style reminiscent of the 70s in it’s simplicity. Why they are cropped at the left and right I’m not sure. Perhaps the use of the mountains is seeking to create a sense of place, implying a rugged, rural setting? The treatment seems more appropriate for a range of hiking gear. Having said that, I think the bold style could perhaps have worked had the typography matched the graphic treatment and been more adventurous.
Instead, a stolid uppercase serif is used, lacking any flourishes or quirks it tends to add the to the impression of a logo caught between two stools. Lacking the hutzpah of a young institution or the gravitas of an older one.
Judging by the tops of the lower case n, m and g looks to be using FF Dax with the modification of the lower case e straightened. A fresh face without too much modulation in the strokes – interest instead coming from the way the aforementioned m’s, n’s and g have arcs that finish abruptly at the junction of a vertical stroke.
The castle is simply drawn with some nice details to show light coming from the right. At the bottom is I presume, a representation of the River Trent. The combination of the two window slits in the tower and the river suggest (to me at least), a slightly whimsical face.
A simple vertical line delineates the text and graphic portions of the logo, with either side anchored around it. A neat little separator for a logo that is a confident use of ‘heritage’ imagery with a contemporary typeface.
A strong band of red with the Stafford Knot reversed out. I have to confess it reminded me of a pretzel, but as a decorative and slightly abstract shape to provide a focus for the logo it works well. It’s good to see that the university has subtly made the most of this link to the location.
The typography is simple, strong, and by necessity for such a long name, tightly spaced. I particularly like the slightly lighter weight of ‘university’ and they the length of staffordshire has been turned into a virtue, and used to integrate with the red stripe. It anchors the whole thing well.
Strangely disparate logo. The illustrative part seems to function independently of the typography.
On first glance the illustration is suggestive of the famous double helix of DNA , but this is refuted here. Instead it is more mundanely signifying the coming together and intertwining of the UNiversity’s aims and outlooks. As such it’s less specific and also less interesting.
The typography looks like a combination of Kabel and Gill Sans. The ends of the diagonals on the K and V are finished square, like Kabel, whilst the letter U has no spur in common with Gill Sans. It is very widely spaced, giving an almost art deco air. It reminded me of a less successful version of the Leeds University logo.
The simplicity of the typography perhaps needs a correspondingly strong pictorial element, which the ribbons don’t quite provide.
A custom drawn wordmark based on something similar to Univers 65. It uses very small leading making the bolder ‘Coventry’ and light ‘University’ very snug. The dot off the lower letter i’s are missing and the descender off the y intrudes into the lower y.
According to the wikipedia entry on the University, the phoenix was Chosen to represent the rising of the city after the heavy bombing it suffered during World War II.
The way the Phoenix has been drawn initially reminded me of the banking industry, but the combination of that with modern feel of the sans serif typeface diminishes that association. The detailed and modulated calligraphy obviously loses some of it’s effect when used at smaller sizes, but is so successful larger that crops of it are suggested as design elements in the corporate guidelines.
The variation of weights in both the type and the design make for a pleasing balance to this logo, managing to reconcile the ornate and the functional.
The Northampton logo has an interesting approach, explained with this diagram from the corporate guidelines.
As you can see an attempt has been made to incorporate a few elements and meanings into the logo, it only really works if the letters function as letters first and foremost. Good idea to incorporate a graphic based obliquely on something important and relevant to the town, but trying to mangle the letters ‘n’ and ‘u’ into a pre-existing shape seems a step too far.
It could be that I’m staying up too late but I see a stylised rabbit somewhere in there. The badge shape is however, a nice variation on the traditional shield, and hints at what could be done with this logo. The ‘u’ shape makes the logo feel unresolved.
On the plus side, I Like the choice of optima as a clean and softer modern font. Tightly spaced but still managing to be fresh and open without trying too hard to be dynamic and aspirational. The decision to set it all in uppercase makes alignment easy negating any awkward whitespace within the word.
Better in one colour rather than the red and blue, which are both strong shades and compete with each other. A problem that is unfortunately exacerbated by the difference of the type. Presumably the update to the text is to make the university appear less formal, with the simple choice seeming to be sans-serif. The hierarchy is disrupted by the colours and the way that both vie for the foreground.
When a single colour is used all the elements hang together more coherently, though there’s still the tricky problem of those letter O’s that bring a lot of space right to the middle of the wordmark. Perhaps an extra level of hierarchy might help the sans-serif text to live with the larger serif, which currentlty dominates. I’m sure that it was the intention to emphasise that but overall it seems to shout Brookes whilst not quite resolving the tone of voice for the rest of the logo.