See it on the right?
Click to expand
See it on the right?
Click to expand
I’ll tell you, do you know how many residents put up signs to support using taxpayer money to decrease capacity on Masonic Avenue?
None, zero, nada.
But people on Masonic seem to love putting up signs going against the plan to take out 100-something parking spaces.
I don’t know why the electeds who voted for this project would change their minds now – it seems only a lawsuit* could have any effect at this point.
The windmill tilting continues – this sign looks homemade:
You can’t fight City Hall, right?
*And even then, I don’t see how you’d win.
Here it is, from just last week:
“We walked away from the logo itself in part because we knew that our broader communications strategy and the other elements of the visual identity system could advance without it. Being able to move on with other elements of our work and the rest of the visual system is actually a tribute to the symbol’s success and our overall strategy.”
To review, this was the reaction at the time.
Anyway, since the new logo got ashcanned, its proponents have gone on the road to sing its praises. Why? I don’t know. How does this sort of thing benefit UC?
Now, here’s the reaction from the designerly community. First from CCullen:
I don’t buy the false narrative. This was a brand exercise that overreached and was as a result a complete failure. The notion that this design can be celebrated when not embraced has no understanding of the goal of branding in the university ecosphere–engagement is the sine qua non of a university brand, and in this case a university system brand. This is an Oscar nomination for a film that has never been released. The video was perfectly prescriptive–the traditional seal was doomed, and the rest is back tracking and hindsight. When it lives, celebrate it, until then just know it was an epic failure and a waste of scarce public funds.
I agree with CCullen. I attended the UC affinity session at the AIGA conference in Minneapolis and it was one of the most uncomfortable experiences I have had in the design world. What should have been a presentation about why the logo works for what their goals were turned into an hour long passive-aggressive temper tantrum that only fueled the fire of controversy. I will admit that the identity system as a whole is certainly successful. The promotional materials and such that went along with it were beautiful but I simply cannot get past the ridiculous logo.
AIGA stands for American Institute of Graphic Arts. But not officially. Officially, AIGA is AIGA. Anyway, they have a big trade convention every couple of years.
And this was the talk of the town last weekend in Minneapolis, Minnesota, The Little Apple:
“THE UC LOGO CONTROVERSY: HOW 54,000 PEOPLE, THE MAINSTREAM PRESS AND VIRTUALLY EVERY DESIGNER GOT IT WRONG.
And here’s an early review:
But who is to blame? That’s right, The Media:
Few design engagements capture the public’s interest like an identity redesign, and few redesigns have been more publicly controversial than the recent effort by the University of California. In this facilitated session with UC Creative Director Vanessa Corrêa and Designer Kirill Mazin, Christopher Simmons examines the good, the bad and the ugly of the logo controversy, including the process, the rollout strategy, and the discourse it created amongst the public, the media and the profession. What lessons can we learn from this controversy? What has it taught us about the relationship between design and society at large? What cautions does it offer for the next big redesign? This is an interactive session. Bring your questions, opinions and an open mind.
Usually when people run in the corrupt Twitterloin / Civic Center / Tenderloin area, it’s because they’re either victims or perpetrators, right?
So just jogging around for fun, well, that’s something new I think.
Click to expand
All the deets from the oldest and largest law school in the West:
“Purpose: To encourage healthy living and life balance through regular athletic activity; to promote a positive image of UC Hastings to the larger Bay Area community through involvement in charity runs; and to foster a sense of community at UC Hastings”
I’ll tell you, the “average,” the typical user of Masonic will in no way benefit from spending eight figures worth of taxpayer dollars on a 3000 foot stretch of Masonic betwixt Fell and the new City Target Store up on Mervyn’s Heights at Geary.
And that’s sort of funny ’cause this recently-greenlighted project was billed as being “accommodating” to “all users,” as something that would benefit all.
Now myself, perhaps I’ll end up benefiting from the changes, we’ll see. But I live too close to Masonic to feel right about advocating ‘n stuff. Seems selfish. (I’ll tell you, I sure feel sorry for those living in the West Bay, out there in the Fog Belt.)
But you, if you use Masonic to get from one place or another, you’re going to be fucked during the AM and PM drives. That’ll also include car drivers, and passengers, and bus drivers and passengers, etc. Cyclists will benefit but for peds, well, it won’t really matter. Abutting property owners will probably appreciate the new trees on the new useless medians. And that’s about it.
Where all the traffic will go during the morning and evening drives, well, we’ll see.
Anyway, here’s the latest:
Joshua Calder was pretty drunk when he killed Nils Linke, but the other driver, the one who killed the purported “jaywalking” ped, wasn’t he DUI as well? (I’ll point out that both these deaths happened outside of the rush hours.)
Anyway, here are some more deets from the rebel forces:
UCSF is finally getting off its ass and doing something about all those eucalyptus trees and this is the response?
I cry foul.
Now, leaving aside the fact that the Mount Sutro “cloud forest” aint a cloud forest and it aint a forest* neither, UCSF does stuff.
What do the whiny millionaire NIMBY neighbors of UCSF do? Nothing.
Of course, there are impoverished hippies who similarly oppose UCSF doing anything to manage this area, so I’m going to look into this when I can.
But the assumption is:
WHY SHOULDN’T UCSF BE ABLE TO MANAGE ITS LAND?
See? UCSF does stuff. What do YOU do?
Click to expand
To Be Continued…
*What is it really? A stand, a grove, a wood? (Which is the most insulting?) Alls I know is that Christopher Robin used to play in the Hundred Acre Wood, not the Hundred Acre Forest, right?
Hey, it’s the Masonic Avenue Street Design Study:
“About the Project – The primary goal of the Masonic Avenue Street Design Study is to identify how Masonic Avenue between Geary Boulevard and Fell Street can safely and efficiently accommodate the needs of all roadway users, including but not limited to … motorists.”
ALL RIGHT, EXACTLY HOW DOES THIS PROJECT “ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS” OF “MOTORISTS?” OH, NOT AT ALL? THOUGHT SO. MOVING ON.
1. Engage representatives of all constituencies within the community who would be impacted by changes to Masonic Avenue…
ALL RIGHT, WHICH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE “MOTORIST” “CONSTITUENCY” WERE “ENGAGED?” ANY AT ALL? YOU KNOW, THE OCTAVIA BOULEVARD PEOPLE “ENGAGED” MOTORISTS AS FAR AWAY AS MONTEREY BOULEVARD, OUT THERE WITH CLIPBOARDS AND EVERYTHING. DID THE MASONIC AVENUE PEOPLE DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OH NO.
2. Improve transit operation.
THIS PROJECT WILL UNIMPROVE TRANSIT OPERATION ON AND AROUND MASONIC – THERE’S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. IT’S GOING TO SLOW DOWN THE BUSES THAT USE MASONIC, INCLUDING THE OCCASIONAL #5 FULTON AND #21 HAYES.
3. Improve pedestrian and non-motorized access to transit.
SO TRANSIT USERS WILL HAVE “BETTER ACCESS” TO REDUCED BUS SERVICE? I DON’T GET THE BETTER ACCESS PART – YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT A BUS STOP? ALSO, WHAT’S “MOTORIZED ACCESS TO TRANSIT?”
4. Increase the safety of pedestrian crossings.
YOU KNOW, THE PRIOR PROJECT MANAGER IS ON THE RECORD AS STATING THAT THIS KIND OF THING IS BAD TO DO LIKE NOW BECAUSE IT WOULD HURT THE CAUSE OF PUSHING THE ENTIRE PROJECT THROUGH. KIND OF SAD, REALLY.
5. Increase motorist compliance with traffic rules and regulations.
UH, WHAT, WITH TREES? IF I WANTED TO INCREASE COMPLIANCE WITH TRAFFIC LAWS, I’D JACK THE SPEED LIMIT UP TO 40 MPH. NOW, THAT WOULD HAVE SOME SIDE EFFECTS, BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULD REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF SPEEDING, RIGHT? OR, HAVING HOURS-LONG TRAFFIC JAM UPS DURING THE MORNING AND EVENING DRIVES WOULD REDUCE SPEEDING, IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE GETTING AT?
6. Reduce the number of vehicular collisions, especially those involving pedestrians and bicyclists.
HOW? BY PLANTING TREES? WE’LL SEE. HEY DIDN’T THE RECENT OCTAVIA BOULEVARD / MEDIAN PROJECT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF VEHICULAR COLLISIONS ON OCTAVIA? YES IT DID. HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT?
7. Support neighborhood vitality by creating a more inviting and accommodating public realm.
BY PUTTING IN A MEDIAN AND PLANTING TREES? SO, LET’S TAX AMERICA, CALIFORNIA, AND SAN FRANCISCO TO CREATE A “REALM” ON 3000 FEET WORTH OF STREET PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WEALTHY PROPERTY OWNERS AND PRIVATE SCHOOL(S) WHAT ARE ON THE STREET? ALL RIGHT.
To the right of this accident scene is Octavia Boulevard.
And to the left, a block away, is Octavia Street.
And in the middle, you’ll see NIMBY Green with a newish Mercedes Benz CLS sitting on top.
Via ciprofloxacin – click to expand
You see, Octavia used to be a regular old street until Redevelopment (a bad idea from the 20th century) and the failed Octavia “Boulevard” experiment (a bad idea from the 21st century) came along.
Anyway. this is what results when “activists” are valued more than traffic engineers…
(Or you could say college campus, since they only teach one subject here.)
Usually, the place looks like two office buildings next to each other.
Anyway, here’s the largest (for now) and oldest law school west of the Mississippi, mas o menos, with a larger-than-average number of stus milling about:
Click to expand