The new logo for One World Trade Center, by London-based Wordsearch.

One World Trade Center logo

One World Trade Center logo

One World Trade Center logo

“According to Wordsearch director William Murray, the consultancy pitched to developers Cushman & Wakefield in December 2009 with a film and strategic presentation, before further pitches to The Durst Organization and The Port Authority.”

Quoted from Design Week.

One World Trade Center
Under construction, photo courtesy of Huffington Post

One World Trade Center
Construction inside the 91st floor

One World Trade Center logo

“The logo uses a customized version of Hoefler & Frere-Jones’s Gotham font. The logo’s “ONE,” when used on postcards and stationery, will be set in Pantone 301 flat blue, which the marketers are calling ‘One World Trade Center Blue.'”

Quoted from Capital New York.

I can only guess at the size of the committee involved for such a landmark building, and the struggles it might’ve taken to reach consensus on anything. I get the feeling this wasn’t Wordsearch’s preferred direction.

More info on the $3.1 billion construction project here.

On a slight tangent, one of the most poignant logos I’ve seen is based on the events of that day in 2001, the 9/11 Memorial logo by Landor New York, where as well as the 11 symbolising the Twin Towers, it also acts as a “pause,” because that’s what we should do. Pause, remember, reflect, learn.

# #

April 19, 2012


Oh. I can’t help but think of the infamous China Restaurant logo. Sorry, smutty mind.

I agree, David, the 9/11 logo is excellent. I simply don’t get the same sense of identity from this.

Oops, disregard my comment above – I meant the Institute of Oriental Studies logo, which is rather suggestive. That will teach me to not trust the first thing I find on Google before I’ve had coffee.

So there was 9/11 and people died.. and somebody made a logo… why?
Sad, too sad.
After the terrific moment some tried to get along with their lives and some went to war. But there is another category of beings that felt like their pride was smashed and started building even bigger and better buildings. But they stood for a second and got an idea, let’s make a brand out of it. Let’s have a logo to give a face to our idea and somehow is ok with me.
The thing that bothers me is that the main idea of a war is to punish and destroy. And to show off.
So how would a logo look like for an action like build homes for children that lost their parents or schools or hospitals for those that lost parts of their bodies in the war of revenge in middle east?
Most times we hear about war we already have an image of the army logo with the elementslike flags and stars and eagles and purple and red and uniforms…
The saddest thing about the war is that because of the image we have most of the time war gets along as a natural act of human beings…
So my point is – if i may have one…
Not every-time we see a logo we should get all excited. Sometimes we must find time to think about our actions and writings and definitions.
Because some people come here to learn and they might even like the next link and forget the real purpose of it.

Alin, the 9/11 Memorial isn’t just a list of names. It’s a website, a visitor centre, lesson plans, tour guides, mobile apps, and a lot more, with the intention of remembering those who died and teaching us about what happened. War is terrible. No-one’s denying that. But it makes sense that all of these separate memorial elements show at least some form of visual cohesion.

Yes 9/11 is not just a list of names and I agree that seems to net some visual cohesion, What i wonder is why we do not brand also the loss of the people from middle east?
Why is ok that their death to remain a statistic and the damage done in their country should not have a logo?
What is wrong with the people?
I have been visiting the old concentration camps from Germany – and got the same sense of sickness but i guess it comes with the culture… starting from the painted faces of the warriors in the early age of humanity – the tribal identity.
So we can not somehow let go of this, we feel like we need brands and logos and we love when our preferred brand is winning the war. But the essence is that that the act of war is mostly based on destruction and pain and other people loss. And being happy because other people lost the war is just sick.

No David I have nothing against you, I come here to learn and i mostly like what i see.
I know people come here in good faith and not thinking about the negative part of the war.
My point is not everything should deserve a brand. Not all our actions should have a logo. Most of the time is because the branding is wrongfully promoted.
War and the collateral damage should be acknowledged and never brag about.
Sorry for disturbing with my interventions. (but it was a reaction to the branding of OWTC).
Have a nice weekend folks!

For me it’s not about whether something deserves a brand or not, because the formation of a brand is in many ways out of our hands — being what others think about a company, a movement, a political party, etc., those others who form an opinion of their own, whether good, bad, or indifferent.

You said that not all our actions should have a logo. Of course you’re right. But a landmark building is something different.

Hope you have a nice weekend, too, Alin.

Nice logo, but I don’t take it seriously enough as a statement of moving on.

Its too bubble for the ONE and the last image shows that. All the other images with a bitmap behind it make it look better than it is, but that is a smoke and mirrors trick because its never always presented that way. Mostly in the last image on a plain sheet of paper.

I also think the O takes up too much space compared to the N & E.

I like it, don’t love it. But hey, anything is better than Helvetica.

I don’t like the logo, it does look like a syringe and it’s not a quality symbol of who we are as a people and what that building is supposed to represent. If it were just a logo for a building fine, but at one time I remember them calling this building “The Freedom Tower.” Now it’s pretty much NOT associated with the loss felt on 9/11 or a symbol of moving forward either, just business as usual, nothing personal to the people, just the owners. I don’t like it at all.

It looks more like a silicon tube. Yawning and uninspiring at all. Why is the antenna is such a bigger deal than the rest of the building? From where you can get a sense of “world”? The logo itself is supposed to brand a magnificent building and yet the design failed on many levels.

It’s so ugly and not inviting anymore. They should have built elsewhere and left the original site as a memorial. Can you imagine the haunting that will take place, and it’s probably built purposely in that triangular shape because when another 9/11 happens and it falls inward again, they’ll blame the shape instead of planned demolition.

Why is there a gap between the n and e and intentially the o and n butting up against each other! Consistent spacing!

Share a thought