KEY POINTS:
Talk about sitting around fiddling while Rome burns. On the eve of a royal commission sitting to redesign the structure of Auckland's governance, we have bureaucrats toiling away redesigning the logos of both Auckland City and the Auckland Region. The bill for Auckland City's rebranding could top $1 million. The new regional logo has cost $165,000 so far - $90,000 out of regional rates and $75,000 from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
Putting the regional exercise to one side, common sense would suggest Auckland City hang on to its existing logo, with two triangular sails and Rangitoto in the background, until the fate of Auckland City as an entity is decided.
The more this logo nonsense bubbles on, the more you have to wonder why the city doesn't revert to the proud, near 100-year-old coat of arms that is emblazoned across the side of the City Administration Building for all to see. It's so retro by now, it must be trendy again. What's best, it won't cost ratepayers a penny. We already own it.
Reading Graham Bush's history of the city council, it appears the city had a coat of arms before this one. In 1887, at the height of a financial crisis, cost-cutting measures by the council included removing the coat of arms from council advertisements and the discontinuation of free rubbish collections. However, by October 1911, the city was prosperous enough to apply to the Royal College of Arms and be granted an official coat of arms - the first city in New Zealand to do so.
It's a rather more fussy logo than present day design experts would recommend, but it does tell the city story rather more coherently than the meaningless deflated triangle that has now been foist upon us.
Inside the shield of the coat of arms is a cornucopia, or horn of plenty, reflecting the wealth of the region, along with crossed pick and shovel, symbolising early mining activity. The sailing ship symbolises Auckland's role as a major port. On each side of the shield stands a kiwi, on top is a flax bush and beneath is the motto "Advance".
As a hieroglyphic representation of the Auckland story, the old logo makers at the Royal College of Arms didn't do such a bad job. There was certainly none of the obtuse nonsense of the new design.
It wasn't until 1982, when a advertising agency was brought in to, in Dr Bush's words, "kindle awareness and use of the council's chargeable amenities" that it was decided the coat of arms wasn't pulling its weight. It was repackaged with the slogan "Auckland City Council, Caring for Your City" wrapped around it. Three years later, the wording was changed to "Auckland City, Caring for You."
In March 1974, a 5.5m metal reproduction of the coat of arms was cast at great expense and affixed to the City Administration Building.
With the local government reforms of 1989, a public contest was called for the design of a new logo, and from the 3200 entries, one combining "sails, sea and the dynamism of the new city" was selected. With it came the slogan "City of Sails". Ten years later, the Fletcher council tried to replace it with "First City of the Pacific", but that didn't last. In more recent times, we've just been Auckland City.
Of course, to the vast majority of us, all this tinkering with logo designs and slogans is just another way for advertising agencies and their hangers-on to grow richer at the ratepayers' expense. It would have been nice to think the bureaucrats were there to protect the city coffers from these hocus-pocus merchants, rather than to lay out the red carpet for them.
As for this airy-fairy project headed by Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett seeking a logo that sums up the essence of Auckland, someone should turn that public money tap off immediately.
If private enterprise has such faith in the existence and merits of such a wealth-enhancing device, then let those who stand to benefit front up with the cash.
I don't know why they want to ditch the City of Sails tag, unless it was to replace it with City of Volcanoes. But if people feel naked without a catchline, City of Sails is as good as any. It suggests sea and holiday activity and the great outdoors which, as city images go, is surely not a bad starting point.
