Logos of the candidate cities for the 2016 Olympics | Hacker News Reader

Logos of the candidate cities for the 2016 Olympics

designer-daily.com

It's surprising how "cold" and professional the Chicago logo feels. I'm definitely a fan of Madrid's logo - IMHO the Olympics needs to focus on unity now moreso than ever. A more "human" logo certainly helps.

Plus the symbolism of the handprint is much more universal than any star or ribbon can be.

I think they were going for a fusion of Olympic iconography (the torch) with the Chicago flag ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Chicago )and a bit of a skyscraper motif.

While the Chicago flag is a bit inside baseball (and probably included solely as a sop to the Chicago political establishment, who intend to own the Olympics as thoroughly as they own everything else that ever came out of Chicago politics), I do think that incorporating a bit of the local flair into the logo is a good design goal. I like Madrid's logo, don't get me wrong, but couldn't it be San Fransisco's logo, or London's logo, or Moscow's logo, etc, without modification?

I kind of like Tokyo's -- the ribbon is togetherness but the design is distinctly Japanese. I expect the prominent inclusion of the hinomaru (the red disk in the center of the Japanese flag) probably will get a raised eyebrow or two from some quarters, but the Olympics is not exactly a celebration of anti-nationalism now is it.

I thought that, of the lot, the Madrid logo really just stood out very distinctively.

I agree that the "M" is a little understated. However, I personally don't feel it's so important that Madrid "owns" the logo at this stage - it'll come to identify with the city eventually if they win the bid and the logo enters the public consciousness.

Alternate logo and real-life usage of the Madrid logo at the designer's site: http://www.behance.net/Gallery/Madrid-2016/182876

My first reaction to the Chicago logo was 'there they go waving the flag again'. To me it's got a very patriotic look. Of course I got the flag wrong in my hurry to rush into stereotypes about flag-revering Americans.

Your friendly neighborhood flag-revering American has a suggestion for you: there are two design elements of note on an American flag. The first is the color scheme: red, white, and blue. The second is the motif: stars (generally plural, number mostly unimportant although it is canonically 50) and stripes (generally plural, number mostly unimportant although it is canonically 13).

If it doesn't have all three of red, white, and blue or both of stars and stripes, the designer almost certainly wasn't going for an American flag. For example, the overwhelming majority of Americans would not connect a white star and a blue star paired together as recognizably American.

American flag iconography also tends to use wavy lines, for the "flag fluttering in the breeze" effect. Additionally, it overwhelmingly features the flag oriented horizontally with the blue bits in the top left.

For a good example of modern American flag iconography, see the Obama O logo (which is, incidentally, probably the best logo I have ever seen in politics or otherwise, and I say that as a Republican). You don't remember McCain's campaign logo (that's a statement, not a question, nobody remembers it) but it had a Navy Star rather than a flag at its centerpiece.

Sorry, I get a kick out of this stuff. Tangent over.

Well, that's the more sophisticated view of course. To me it looks like something on a poster for a movie about Navy jet fighter pilots.

The US Navy star design: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevestr/434646324/in/set-72157...

The number of stars is not arbitrary, it is equal to the number of states. In fact the US flag has been changed whenever states joined the union. Before Hawaii's statehood in 1960, the flag had 49 stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa_flag#Historical_progression...

I think the parent knows that the number of starts on the American flag is not arbitrary. He is, however, talking about icons and pictures where someone deliberately invokes the American flag. In that case, a few stars is enough to get the idea across.

I expect the prominent inclusion of the hinomaru (the red disk in the center of the Japanese flag) probably will get a raised eyebrow or two...

Heh... Check out the 1964 Tokyo Olympics logo: http://www.sportslogos.net/league.php?id=27

You aren't supposed to use the national flag with the olympic logo.

From the designer of the Chicago Logo:

The Chicago 2016 logo blends the colors of the five Olympic rings surrounding the city’s six-pointed star, evoking serene blue lakefront, vibrant green landscape and fiery skyline. It also evokes Chicago’s Games concept—to host compact Olympic Games celebrated in the center of the city, along the lakefront and in the city’s parks.

http://vsapartners.com/news.asp?article=71

Despite the criticisms of some of these logos (in this thread and elsewhere), I don't think I would be as embarrassed to be from any of these places as the London 2012 logo makes me feel http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/All_London_201...

That logo is so 80's it makes me wonder if they're going to turn back on all the analog cell sites in the city and hand out Zack Morris DynaTAC phones.

So... that logo made me go "what?", and a few seconds later think of Lisa Simpson performing a sexual act, before finally realizing that it says "2012".

Conclusions: I'm deranged. That logo is horrible.

It's worth mentioning that the bid logo is generally different from the logo of the actual games. London's bid logo was a much more attractive (if less attention-grabbing): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_2012_Olympic_Games_...

I'm not sure why they change the logos, given that the final logo is almost always less attractive than the bid logo. In Sydney, frinstance, we had a nice neat bid logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney2000bid.png) which for the actual games they decided to unnecessarily complicate with a running man and some boomerangs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_2000_Logo.svg

Nothing nearly as bad as London 2012, though.

It's interesting how "typically American" the Chicago logo is. It actually looks rather like a mix between the Los Angeles and Salt Lake City logos.

And in case anyone is curious, historical Summer Olympics logos: http://www.sportslogos.net/league.php?id=27 And Winter Olympics: http://www.sportslogos.net/league.php?id=64

All, presumably, very expensive, and mostly pretty bad.

Chicago's is the only one I like -- it's the only one that really tries to sell me the city in question. Looking at it reminds me directly of the best bits of Chicago: it's got a big blue lake and some big shiny buildings, and when looked at from the correct angles it's really pretty. The other logos look pretty much interchangeable (except maybe Rio's, which not having been to Rio I don't understand).

Unfortunately, I honestly think that Chicago has the worst logo of them all. But I really do hope they win the bid for the 2016 Olympics.

I hope not. Let Tokyo host it. The cost for Chicago and US will be enormous and we will be left with elephant structures.

The first version of Chicago's logo was better than the current one, IMHO: http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/chicago-olympic-logo-2016/

The original logo was nixed by the Olympic Committee because it was shaped like a torch, and the torch is "Olympic-related imagery." http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/389836,CST-NWS-torch...

Not to be a wet blanket but I don't like the Madrid logo at all. Many see it as a welcoming hand; I see it as a (e.g., policeman) ordering me to stop. It's almost shouting "go away, we don't want you here!". And no, I've nothing to feel guilty about. Well, excluding a strict religious upbringing decades ago.

Still better than London's though.

Where is poll?

Chicago's feels great, but I've liked Rio more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com