Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Branding Logo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSD Advisory Board narrows downtown logo contest to three student finalists, adopts revision parameters
Summary
The MSD Advisory Board selected three student designs and voted to ask the finalists to revise their submissions to meet new parameters: vibrant color, a linear downtown streetscape, and no business signage; finalists will be asked to deliver updated files for the board to review.
The MSD Advisory Board voted March 24 to advance three student designs in a downtown logo contest and to ask those students to revise their entries to a short set of parameters.
Sean, a presenter for the board, told members the original two-year contest produced no submissions until a local professor offered extra credit to students at Nash Community College, North Carolina Wesley and Western Carolina. "We got the submissions and we told the deadline," Sean said, describing how outreach produced varied student work including streetscapes, skylines and festival motifs.
Board members discussed options and criticisms for several entries. Some favored a streetscape that would represent the look of Washington Street; others preferred a bolder, colorful approach that would reproduce well across social channels and signage. Members raised practical concerns about including business names or signage because that could exclude other downtown merchants.
After deliberation the board identified three shortlisted student submissions to keep for revision: entries credited in the packet to Elijah (Elijah Woodard in the packet), Tamisha Newuel and Cecilia Rena. The board agreed on parameters for revision: use vibrant, eye-catching color; depict a linear downtown streetscape that evokes downtown Nashville; and avoid including storefront names or other signage (the courthouse may be retained as a landmark). A member summarized the board’s approach, saying they would ask the finalists to "incorporate this" feedback into a final submission.
The board adopted those parameters and the plan to contact the three students by voice vote; the chair confirmed, "Motion passed." Sean said he would email the finalists and circulate the parameters to the board for review before sending them to the students.
Board members also agreed to give students additional time to revise: the board discussed accepting final submissions by the May meeting to avoid students’ midterm schedules. The board did not record a roll-call vote; the outcome was approved by voice vote.
What’s next: Sean will circulate the written parameters to the board, notify the three students that they are finalists, and request revised files that meet the parameters. The board will review the revised submissions at a future meeting.
