SALES / SUPPORT : +1-877-525-5646   |  


Logo for an Architecture Firm

Coralic Architecture

Contest Holder Mirelaija2017 ?

Last Logged in : 2643days19hrs ago

Concepts Submitted

182

Guaranteed Prize
300
Winner(s)

1

A Logo, Monogram, or Icon veildAll design entries are veiled from other designers till the end of the contest.
tick_gray

Live Project

tick_gray

Deciding

tick_blue

Project Finalized


Project: Logo for an Architecture Firm
Industry: Architecture Logo
Contest Launched: Jan 13, 2017
Selected: 1 winning design from 182 concepts
Winning Design by: MasterDesign
Close Date: Jan 14, 2017


Logo for an Architecture Firm - Architecture


Awarded as a winner
Project Report    

Sort by:


#169

#127

#167

#150

#149

#172

#171

#148

#170

#168

#156

#154


Creative Brief


Logo for an Architecture Firm

Coralic Architecture

No

This logo should represent my Architecture Firm. Currently I have a logo that I quickly designed myself. Please see my facebook paige that shows my current logo. https://www.facebook.com/CoralicLLC/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel.

Architecture

Logo Type
Logo Type

Symbolic
Symbolic

Illustrative
Illustrative


Modern
Cutting-edge
Professional
High Tech

As far as colors I am not married to green- just don't want it to be red. I do like gold, gray, black colors. The lettering on my current logo is not necessary.

not sure

My firm is called Coralic Architects LLC. We design mainly commercial structures. I would avoid doing a logo with a house or a structure because that is too obvious. I really like the start of my log- see my facebook paige link- but I think its too simple/ not professionally done. I really like the simplicity of it but I want it to be eye catching and portray the image of the company.

Related Contests


Logo for an Architect and Interior Design company
$500
Prize Money
252
Concepts
CMS Insite
$200
Prize Money
100
Concepts
Logo for a small Architectural Design Studio
$222
Prize Money
94
Concepts
logo for a fiber wall panel company
$200
Prize Money
41
Concepts

Discussion


Comments