As someone retired from the graphic design business, I was surprised to see the rendering of the Terminal 1 project in The Columbian on Sept. 12. Why would anyone think that putting a sign that says Terminal 1 on top of this new building makes sense? Here is a building which is designed to be a tourist attraction, not a freight warehouse, sited next to the Interstate 5 Bridge with a sign that very few people will understand. The name Terminal 1 may have historic significance, but almost no one is going to care about that except a few at the port.
This unique site presents an opportunity to draw in people passing by on the freeway who know nothing about Vancouver, but a sign proclaiming Terminal 1 isn’t likely to draw many of them in. With this project, the comparison has been made to Seattle’s Pike Place Market, but you might notice that their sign says exactly what it is. If this project is to be Vancouver’s version of Pike Place Market, why not make the purpose clear in the signage?
I also understand that a Southern California branding company was hired to do this “brand.” Did it really take a company from California to come up with this bad idea?
