Agreed, I was concerned that the logo would look tacky. I expected it to visually mar this outstanding development, but it complements it nicely.
I've watched this thing three times in a row right now, I can't stop. I'm also baffled at the (pretty sure it's an) Aussie accent never mentioning Boston once, and I too am suspicious this is a mostly recycled assets. The wipe at about 23 seconds looks like it was spliced in. The "a place that unites two thriving districts in the center of our city" beat looks like a simplified Google Earth capture from 2016, which matches the date in the page's footer. I'm guessing this was made really early from cobbled together stock assets and the Google Earth API - hence no real renderings and just a placeholder white block. It's strange that a more polished version hasn't been released.
I can't figure out if it's secretly trendy and I'm not getting it - it does evoke a 'Severance' type theme - or if they just had a $75 budget for the video. You tend to lean toward the latter, but it doesn't make sense with all the money they are pouring into the development.
I think it would be impossible to read if it was white.
In general, it doesn't bother me. But it's one of those things that can go off the rails pretty quickly if not properly regulated. Some companies will plaster their logo over every blank surface. The Salesforce issue in Chicago is a bit cautionary --
I'm not sympathetic to this issue. I have a 10 million watt parking floodlight right outside my bedroom window and I solved the problem with blackout curtains. Why live in the city if you don't want lights.In general, it doesn't bother me. But it's one of those things that can go off the rails pretty quickly if not properly regulated. Some companies will plaster their logo over every blank surface. The Salesforce issue in Chicago is a bit cautionary --
(Twitter)
Salesforce Sign Atop New Downtown Tower Was Way Too Bright For Neighbors, So Alderman Has It Dimmed
https://blockclubchicago.org/2023/0...ight-for-neighbors-so-alderman-has-it-dimmed/
I will say the same thing whenever this comes up. Wanting to limit ostentatious outdoor light displays is not an anti-urban NIMBY thing. Needlessly bright outdoor lights on tall buildings kill migrating bird and insect populations. All around the country, municipalities are working to decrease - not increase - light pollution, even from skyscrapers in big cities.
“Ostentatious” and “needless” are totally subjective. The idea that LEDs will “blind“ drivers is absurd. As to birds and insects, I really don’t care.
I guess it’s good then that the people who do care have much more power than you.
I think the off-putting thing is actually the idea of committing willful ecocide so that the internet’s 38th most trusted car website can have an illuminated sign on a skyscraper they don’t own to concord with a child’s vision what a city should look like.
You are also completely wrong on your notion of subjectivity. If being “ostentatious” is to “flaunt wealth or status” it doesn’t get more objectively ostentatious than putting your logo on the side of a skyscraper. Not exactly understated. Also, it is the very definition of “needless” to hang a sign on the side of tall building because the building literally does not need it.
I don't care much one way or the other for the lighting debate, but will agree that the sign on Salesforce here absolutely looks too bright. The old buildings to the left and right side of the shot have the sweet-spot lighting that I would like to see more of, whereas the Salesforce one was ostentatious and needed to be dimmed.
