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.
The combination of the differing word order systems of English and Welsh is used to create a word-mark with top – bottom symmetry. Both languages are rendered in a typeface that seems to be a combination inscriptional/sans-serif, that also manages to suggest calligraphy. The subtle curves on the strokes and the different sizes of the letters create a craft-like effect that seems to be a nod to the celtic roots of Wales, similar in feel to that used on the Wales Millenium Centre The simple placement of rectangles above each other, in effect combines two logos, and they are brought together by the muted red.
The name UCLAN seems at little cumbersome, but since UCL is taken I guess it makes sense.
A pretty figurative approach is taken on the rendering of the roses, instead of a the more abstract approach often taken by the newer universities. It’s difficult to see past the red rose as a symbol to use when talking about Lancashire since it is so strongly associated with the county. Unsure why there are two. Whilst they sit tidily enough, the placement of the roses and foliage doesn’t seem to add any great sense of tension or balance in the logo. A little bit of Pareidolia has the user vaguley aware of pair of eyes looking out. In fact the pair of red eyes put me in mind of an L S Lowry painting – The Man with the Red Eyes. I think this might be a bit of a reach , but an interesting association nevertheless.
The font looks similar to Frutiger. A legible choice, though used very plainly all in lowercase, giving it a strange, passive voice.
Vaguely reminiscent of a bio hazard sign, this logo is described in the identity toolkit as a link symbol, it is explained thus –
bq. The Link is made up of three connected Cs, which stand for Canterbury Christ Church. It also signifies the three core activities of the University: teaching, research, and administration.
Again, the detailed toolkit tells us that the Typeface is Humanist 777 by Adiran Frutiger.
The combination of these two things make this logo fairly typical of a new university style. The slightly generic symbol and sans-serif combination makes for a mildly antiseptic logo, though it needs to said the long name makes it a challenge to be compact. Trading personality in this way makes it difficult to imagine any real affection for the logo, instead pursuing a low risk strategy.
A development from the original design by Franks and Franks, this identity treads the familar path of university logos by a using an inscriptional serif font to boldly declare the location, allied with a plainly drawn illustrative shield.
The sharp serifs on the uppercase text provide some interest in the generous whitespace. Separated from the crest in what seems to be the modern way, by a thin vertical stroke.
The shield itself is a traditional feeling illustration of a swan, alluding, one presumes, to the motto of the university: – “Flying on our own wings”.
The upward pointing chevron suggests a tower, maybe an open book,a roof, as well as the more obvious arrow suggesting the upward progress of the graduate.
It’s both a strength and a weakness of such a simple shape that the associations come thick and fast but lack some specificity.
Solid uppercase serif is more in line with the traditional expectations of a university, whilst the cheltenham and gloucester text seems a bit of an afterthought. Looking like Gill Sans, it’s at least discrete and is colour matched with the chevron.
Ultimately, despite the modern element it ends up being quite a conservative logo by virtue of it’s minimalism.
Suprising to find out that Befordshire University is a recently created organisation and not born out the creation of many Polytechnics in the sixties. The logo looks like it has a very clear lineage to that era with it clean abstraction of the letter U and B. It also put me in mind of tulips, though I’m not sure that Bedfordshire has any particular association with them.
Whilst being a strong graphic device, the tulips are not well complimented by the light sans serif font that sits passively next to it.The tulips overpower the text and in the proportions used I can’t help thinking that placing the text beneath the image would have integrated things better. It’s maybe even a little too cool for a University, no matter how go-ahead and exciting; I could easily imagine it as a software developers logo, or on a club night flyer. Interesting basic shapes to build edesigns on though.
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.
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.
Standard university crest, drawn in a very pale way that makes it look almost like clip art. Accompanied by some puzzling graphics device, that come with an pretty literal explanation.
The geometric foundation of the design is based upon a circular form, which makes reference to the Institution’s global perspective and international reputation in teaching and research. The typographic elements demonstrate a hierarchy which promotes the importance of the location within the nomenclature. The group of circles represents the incremental growth of knowledge and experience and the progressive development of the University as an educational leader. This thematic device continues through to the linear band on the right of the Coat of Arms and describes the cyclical movement of time, indicating progression and new directions.
Interestingly, the logo as presented is claimed to
achieve an aesthetic balance and unity of form which offers versatility across the Corporate Identity Scheme.
Which I’m not entirely sure about. At present it seems there are some intriguing ideas but the elements feel disconnected. The pale treatment of the circles and linear band prevents them from tightening the rest of the logo. Unfortunately the elements seem to float around the strong traditional core of the logo without adding too much.
On the university website, a different and much tighter logo is used that eschews the graphic signifiers and is content to present a shield and the location.