The city has recently updated its logo which was a $75,000 gift from Macy's, designed by local branding firm giant LPK...
There is an interesting discussion going on at Brand New about this logo. It's interesting to point out that many commenters are lamenting the fact that the new logo doesn't reflect the architectural history of the city, and these are people that don't live here. I'm just sayin'...
Here are some of the comments:
"I think that for a city trying to show its forward thinking as well as rich history the logo leaves something to be desired."
"...it definitely does not capture Cincy very well. Cincinnati is a a city rich with architecture and history and this logo doesn't convey that to me."
"As far as a city logo goes, this one is much better than most I've seen. I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but it's certainly better than, say, Nashville's."
"It definitely doesn't feel 'Cincinnati' to me. This city's full of great things that are unknown even to people that live there (outstanding architecture, robust history, distinct and homey neighborhoods, great food, and an awesome downtown area considering the city size to name a few off the tip of my tounge). Seems like a missed opportunity to communicate these."
I don't think the new logo is THAT bad. It's much better than using some sort of boring crest or shield. What do you think?