Salon.com > Karrie Jacobs

May the best logo win

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:25:00 +0000

Given that branding is our true national pastime -- the swoosh, the golden arches and the mermaid in the green circle are now more ubiquitous, and arguably more potent, than the eagle and the flag -- you would think that a candidate's graphic style would be as strategic as every other piece of his or her message. A strong logo or visual identity should be part of any leading candidate's package.

A quick survey of how the remaining presidential contenders present themselves, however, suggests that not all of them think their graphics are particularly important. Or maybe their inability to execute something as straightforward as a visual style is an indication of deeper problems.

Historically, the graphics of presidential campaigns have often been poorly designed, stale and uninteresting. In a culture where most corporations understand that visual zing is their most powerful weapon, political graphics look like the Christmas ornaments that are stored in a box in the basement, dusted off and reused, year after year after year.

Making it new

Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:13:00 +0000

1. Affordable housing: Cheap = Good
The notion that affordable housing can be good housing, architecturally innovative and inviting -- an idea that motivated many of the original Modernist architects -- is once again gaining traction. In Seattle, a prominent architecture firm, Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen, designed a series of graceful, butterfly-roof modern houses that were built by a local chapter of Habitat for Humanity, an organization that mostly constructs undistinguished, vinyl-sided tract-style houses. In England, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott launched an architectural competition for houses that could be built for approximately $108,000. The winning structures will be manufactured by a government-funded program. The Boston Society of Architects is about to announce the winners of a new national competition for affordable housing. And design/build programs at architecture schools across the country, inspired by the success of Samuel Mockbee's Rural Studio, have been turning out graduates eager to work on low-cost housing. A trend is reborn.

Cheap = Good

Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:32:00 +0000

While today's architectural headlines are generally about glittering new museums or soaring condo towers, with limitless budgets and superstar designers, an important trend is blossoming closer to the ground. In part the movement is fed by the growing popularity of design/build programs in architecture schools across the country -- Fayetteville, S.C.; Seattle; Lawrence, Kan. -- inspired by the success of the late Samuel Mockbee's Rural Studio in Alabama. Ten years ago, students graduated from architecture school burning to build computer-generated blobs. These days, the architectural vanguard is just as likely to emerge with a diploma and a desire to build dirt cheap.

This new generation, devoted to the idea that cheap houses can be good houses, will be especially useful in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which randomly flung New Orleans residents to parts of the country they hardly knew existed. As if in Oz, thousands of displaced persons are wondering where they are and if they'll ever go home again. (One man airlifted to Utah asked, "Am I the only person out here with dreadlocks?") Suddenly it seems more than fortuitous that so many up-and-coming architects in this country are newly passionate about low-cost housing.