Dunwoody Branded Signage pt 2: "What Would YOU Do?"

Recap:  City Hall convened an impromptu sounding board to review KMA's initial vision of wayfinding signage for Dunwoody.

For the most part, very few people hated the concepts outright.  Most in attendance, myself included, said they were essentially on the right track, just tweak the designs to make them more "homey".  I specifically said to use the materials and standards of monument signage in Dunwoody Village.

Given the feedback I can't explain why the same proposal, without any modifications at all, made its way to City Council and execution at the hands of public opinion.

The wayfinding street signage didn't get as much objection:  I'm betting because they are smaller, simpler, and wherever you are people expect a sleek and simple street sign.

The park monument signage (which will set the pace for similar signs for other municipal spaces - City Hall, Police Precinct, possible Fire Department) was problematic.  When you get beyond the purely subjective and emotional adjectives (ugly, etc) you drill down to the root, spelled out in the initial Branding Research Results from November 2010. Page 13 (within the document, after the TOC and cover, not the PDF page) asked "Would you like Dunwoody's image to reflect MOST..." then there was a forced choice between Past, Present, Future, and Other.  There was no "check all that apply".  Most of the comments associated with the "Other" choice indicated that there should be a combination between all three options.  So if you combine the "Other" and "Past" votes from the pie graph, that's about 25% of respondents with this preference.  It's a minority, but a significant one.

So the "branding project" came up with a modern-style set of logos and color combinations - which works because the majority of respondents expressed a preference for a current or futuristic "look".  It works on the web and on stationery, flyers, etc.  But when it comes to a physical monument, something that people will refer to as a landmark and think of in context with the community itself, that "significant minority" kicks in.  There are still a lot of traditional aspects to Dunwoody's collective thinking that deserve to be represented.  IMHO, these monument signs are the way to incorporate all three elements.

"Any time you're ready, wise-guy...."

So this is what I think would work.    This assumes that City Hall is sticking with the branding plan as-is without any modifications.

First, the parks/municipal monument:

Stick with material combinations that have been a Dunwoody tradition and are incorporated throughout smaller shopping areas in the Village overlay district, and even in the revived Georgtown Shopping Center entrance.  Brick (or stone) monument base and frame.  Painted wood (or composite facsimile if that can require less maintenance).  Engrave the text/images into the surface.  Double-sided, of course.

Keep the font, the colors, the alignment that are consistent with the logo.  Maybe even adjust the line height, width, kerning, etc to match what the logo was created with.  Instead of a giant asterisk (which was the one thing that did the most to turn off the focus group) scale the thing back and make it a small accent.  Still visible, still consistent, still an element that reinforces that this marks a city property, just not as a primary element that distracts the viewer from the actual content.

Speaking of scaling back, the original signs were about 8 foot square.  5-foot square would do the job for most of the parks and future municipal spaces.  The only park monument that would need to be larger is Brook Run - not only to match the size of the park itself but to leave room for changeable panels to announce events, etc.  (BTW - Rick, you're not the only one who hates the Concrete Monolith.  Lots of (half) joking suggestions about backing a Public Works pickup truck into it a few times.  I'm of half a mind to do naked cartwheels around the park boundary the day that ugly thing comes down.)

Put the Parks & Rec variation of the city logo in the corner for balance.  Maybe even put the street address in that space underneath the site name.  Lose the tagline for signage - that crosses the line into clutter.

Here's my concept for "Gateway" markers.

Same idea with a low profile.  Again, keep it to 5-feet high, maybe increase the width to 8 feet or whatever is proportional.

Same structural elements as above.  It can be made into a low enough profile to be used at the Winters' Chapel/Peeler intersection without blocking views.  Or, if that little triangle can't handle a monument sign, try installing it on the stone retaining wall around Dunwoody Point shopping center.  Scale it up for major gateways like Georgetown, Mount Vernon, Ashford-Dunwoody, etc.

Most of all, this isn't brand new and untried.  This type of monument signage has been used throughout the Village overlay district to convey commercial identities while keeping the sense of community from changing to fast.

Thanks for reading with me while I got this out of my system.  Have a good night!

Zoning Rewrite Project Next Public Meeting on August 1

The signs have gone up on the street corners.

Next session for general public input is August 1 at Dunwoody UMC Fellowship Hall at 7 PM.

The consultants are soliciting input on the first draft of the first module of the new Zoning Code.  (This is not all there is going to be it's just an initial draft of one section.)

Download and/or print your own copy here:  http://www.zoningdunwoody.com/sites/default/files/documents/Mod1_071612.pdf

Please note that EVERYONE, both the sounding board and general public are getting this at the same time.  There is no super-double-secret access for the sounding board or for anyone else.

Comments are closed on this post.  All comments should be added to either the "Open Questions" tab or to the "Project Blog".   If you are concerned about blowback or other problems in response to open comments you can submit them privately via the email form.  Links to those are available to the left.

Please review at your leisure and make your opinions known by whatever means is more comfortable for you.  There are a lot of comments from a very small group of people and the process would benefit by having a wider range of citizen involvement.

Dunwoody Branded Signage - "When You're In a Hurry, Slow Down"

That was a piece of advice I got when working in a research lab in grad school.  The point being, if you don't have time to do something right the first time, you really don't have time to do it over if you screw up.

IMHO, the City did the right thing in suspending the signage plan in light of the public response.

When the branding initiative combined with the CVB and Chamber of Commerce was announced, I had some serious reservations about it for different reasons.  I made them known to TPTB (*The Powers That Be).  Then, because I like my job and want to keep it, I put my personal feelings aside and attended to the task at hand:  making the new branding standards function in the Chamber website and other online outreach.

I learned to be very objective, very detached, very quickly.

So with that background in mind, I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate here and go on record saying that I don't think the branding as it has been applied thus far, or the signage proposed, was as bad as some claim.  It's not perfect, it needs work, there were some clear missteps along the way, but in the grand scheme, it's not the Hindenberg.

I don't know any creative professional who has not experienced this scenario at least once:  you consult with your client or director, you come up with rough concepts, you flesh them out using every emotional technique in the book, your concept comes to life and the client loves it.  It does everything it's supposed to do, it applies to every contingency and situation.  The colleagues love it.  There's buy-in from everyone on the client's roster.  Then it goes for initial review to the general public, you're so happy with the accomplishment and proud to show it to the world.  And then...

...it totally bombs.

Initial public review is a big, fat thumbs-down.  It's enough to make your question your profession and your life.  It's frustrating.  And no entity or enterprise or corporation is so high-and-mighty that it can't happen to them.  Even Coca-Cola got a galaxy-sized dose of humility with its meticulously-crafted, perfectly researched "New Coke" formula and campaign.

But it happens.  It's part of the creative industry.  I wanted to give the reps from both these organizations a big hug and expound on how much I understand.  I can think of some examples where I've been in the same situation with a client's website.  One took 8 different tries to get the appearance and delivery satisfactory to both the client and their audience. When it happens to me (oh, how it has happened.......:::sigh:::) I vent for a little while, then take a seat, a deep breath, maybe even a glass of wine, and evaluate the feedback.  When I clear my head I usually realize that the modifications necessary are a) not a personal criticism and b) not going to take much effort to incorporate.  Just settle down, review, rethink the box that you're thinking in, and you'll get on the right track.

First, establishing a visual representative identity ("branding") is necessary to building civic pride and community, especially when you have unexpected diversity.  If it wasn't important, the DHA wouldn't have invested in the first attempt in 2006.

Both Sky (which created the overall branding plan) and KMA (which designed the monument signage) did exactly as they were directed by City Hall and in practical terms, did everything right.  Sky put on an elaborate data-gathering plan to solicit input from citizens and the general public to frame their scope.  DunwoodyTalk linked to the survey results in his commentary on this issue.  Take some time to read some of the results written comments.  Not only is there a wide range of opinion, many of them are directly contradictory; some of the recommendations are even legally, financially, or physically impossible.  ("Close the college" is my favorite example.)  Rather than indulge in the luxury of focusing on one segment of this population to the exclusion of all others, Sky (under direction of City Hall) formulated a graphic that attempted to represent all of them, even as they contradicted each other.  You wonder why comprehensive branding plans are so expensive?  This is the reason why.  This is hard work that requires a lot of skill and expertise, as well as a thorough understanding of human psychology.

When your presentation attempts to encompass and represent as many viewpoints as possible, while marginalizing and excluding as few as possible, you get a presentation that becomes "generic" if you're going to keep it simple.

So the City has some options available at this juncture.

They can scratch the effort and start over.  Just absorb the loss and move on.  If you're the Gap, or Tropicana (which I mentioned on this subject in a previous post) you can move some finances around and go that route.  When you're a startup government entity spending tax money, it's a harder choice.  Besides, the survey results aren't going to change much, even if you issue new surveys.  That means the scope you're trying to encompass in your image isn't going to vary either.

They can modify what they have before using it on infrastructure investments.  Tweak a font, tweak a color combo, blend it with other graphics.  Basically, modify the official style guide based on current feedback.

They can hunker down and wait out the storm, then go ahead with their plans as written without modifying the style guide or other proposed implementations.  Doable and the cheapest option - but refer to the previous post and how long Dunwoody memories are.

"OK, wise-guy, what would YOU do?"  Stay tuned for Part 2 after I get some quality time with the kids.  Happy lunch break, everybody!