Urban Green logo

Fairly new from Pentagram is this identity for Urban Green.

Urban Green logo

Urban Green logo

Urban Green logo

“The graphic identity evokes the density of urban life and the city blocks of Midtown Manhattan.”

Project Team: Michael Bierut, partner-in-charge and art director; Jennifer Kinon, designer.

I enjoy viewing the work of designers at the top of their game.

More images and info on the Pentagram blog.


January 2, 2010



If “Urban Green” is an example of work being done by designers at the “top” of their game and at a cost of a new car I would respectfully submit you relearn your directions…”top of the heap” versus “bottom of the pile”

I’m truly amazed you consider this good work….

i don’t find this either good or bad…it works but i don’t find it spectacular in any way and i think that from a distance you couldn’t read it unless you really care what it said and the logo does nothing to atract your attention and i find that there is nothing in the logo that would stay with the customer

identity for green, eco friendly stuff should use as little is possible.
Paint, material, energy. The visual identity and the brand could be build out of used stuff to get as close to the heart of concept. Maybe it does not need any printed materials….
But, that is my humble opinion…
cheers and a new good year David.

This is alright. I appreciate the constraint and the fact that its devoid of any cliches. My main issue is that it clashes with the seal.

I like it. It’s clean and compact. The spacing between the R and the B and the R and the E feels a little tense because the R is so open on the bottom.

I get it, however my first reaction was that I was looking at a larger bitmap font, a little too blocky and cold for my tastes. I like the all lowercase but I wonder what it would look like if the letterforms contained more curves and were a little more um…friendly.

It’s not the most exciting logo I have seen, bit it works well in context. That’s the thing with this logo, it has to be seen in context.

I don’t think this is an example of Pentagram at the top of their game though.

I like the concept and as a standalone it’s very appealing. The different colour variations make it even more appealing.

However, there’s no translation from the logo to the rest of the materials that it’s being applied to. It seems to just sit there, all awkward, bold and macho, especially sat next to the more traditional looking USGBC seal.

The concept is really nice. Kudos to the idea. The text looks like an ambigram in a glance. It’s not that glamorous yet not that plain, I’d say it’s just the right fit.

I love the fact that the word green never appears in the color “green”. It may seem like a small design choice, but it cleverly creates a moment for the viewer in which they have to think about what the color green looks like. I think this is one of the reasons the logo is successful in capturing the attention of viewers.

That bag looks right out of a grocery store.

This logo looks “manly” way before “urban”. I keep seeing the numbers 69 and 99, unsure about the intent there.

This is certainly a well-researched logo and I’d have to agree with the designer’s comments about it reflecting the density of urban life. The usage of a bold, sharp edged condensed font certainly matches the comments, reflecting blocks and the lack of space.

There has been a nice choice of colour in this design too, with the lime green contrasting well against the black. I think the choice of font for the council text is also particularly well thought, it is clear and bold but contrasts the logo font.

The website design seems quite sparse but this works well with the concept, and usage of a large main photo draws attention to the page. The menu and usage of the green block at the top is effective, and I like the way the page has been divided into three columns. I look forward to seeing more identity designs covered, as this was a great choice.

I will admit that at first glance I was not feeling this logo. After reading this post it all makes a lot of sense to the choices made. The very ugly block type almost becomes beautiful as it truly makes the organization behind the logo much more communicable.

Great post!

I used to be really interested in logos. Somehow, I talked a committe guy at IBM to send me a “non maticulated” three week class at the Rhode Island School of Design. I considered this to be the center of mass of this discipline.

Then, 20 years later, I started a business and needed a logo. Our best engineer suggested one of the thundering herd of web-based designers who discuss things for half and hour and emails 10 sample of the most confusing rats’ nest of other-worldly objects… well. That cost not much but time.

I suggested we look at some really effective, global logos: IBM’s logo is, uh, IBM. Oracle, “Oracle”. Coca Cola, on and on. All the effort I learned about in Rhode Island for 6800 bucks was about subliminal suggestion in logos. The only possible exception to this rule is a very subtle, probably NEVER noticed even by employees, is the FedEx logo. If you look closely at the EX, there is a subtle Right Pointing arrow. That’s cool, but hardly anybody knows it’s there.

I do support the stylization of company names. For example, in the “URBAN GREEN” example, will ( maybe already is) just the ticket. Any more out to the asteroid belt with symbols is the guarantee of impending logo retread.

I can definitely see the “urban” but where’s the green–that is, aside from the little green bars and/or green background that aren’t really part of the logo? (Or maybe it’s just because I’m stupid, therefore can’t see the brilliance/thought-process that went to integrating the “green” part to the logo but since I’m actually part of the “normal” intelligence standard of the audience for that logo, I think my question has–at least–a little bit of validity.)

Share a thought