AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[lzppjb]

I commented on the article. I do not like the two proposals at all. I'm all for keeping it the way it is. There's something to be said for tradition. 100 years is a long time. I can see removing the cross, but other than that, and maybe adding a border to break up the white expanse, I wouldn't change anything.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, I sort of have a "if it ain't broke" view of it. I understand the points they were making, and I totally dove into those other links that were attached to the article, but yeah, it's fine as is.

By the way, what exactly is the significance of the lamp (reminds me of Aladdin) and its connection to education? It's just always been one of those things where while I noticed the symbols on the flag, I never gave it much thought of the meaning.

[lzppjb]

Honestly, I never even noticed the lamp before. haha

Light signifies knowledge, while darkness signifies ignorance. I'm guessing the lamp = light.

Also, the Bible tells Christians to let their light/lamp shine:

Matthew 5:15 "nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house."

Basically, you have the knowledge of what's right, don't keep it to yourself, but share it with everyone.

So, I can see it meaning knowledge for the flag, but the cross also tells us the designer had a bit of a religious tilt, so he may have been saying Austin needs to be a shining light on a hill. Jesus said (Matthew 5:14) - "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden."

[hookem]

I know the article says the current flag is basically a "crest on a sheet", and violates many standards of flag design... but hey, it's a city flag. People don't memorize city flags -- if there isn't something that stands out and says "hey, this is Austin"... people would have no idea what that flag represents. The crest and words "City of Austin" make it pretty clear. A new flag design like the one presented may have better design principles, but no one will know what it represents. Unless we spent millions promoting it to get some brand awareness.

Just about the only thing that would make a flag easily identifiable as "Austin" (that isn't something "relatively" short term in our history like a guitar or bat) would be the image of the Capitol building. The San Antonio flag has the Alamo, which serves the same purpose without the actual words "San Antonio" on it. So something like that could work, but otherwise, I'd say leave it the way it is. Or just add some color and leave the crest and "City of Austin".

[The ATX]

The Salt Lick is suing a Georgia company called Salt Lick Sausage for trademark infringement:

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...m-at-same.html

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by hookem

I know the article says the current flag is basically a "crest on a sheet", and violates many standards of flag design... but hey, it's a city flag. People don't memorize city flags -- if there isn't something that stands out and says "hey, this is Austin"... people would have no idea what that flag represents. The crest and words "City of Austin" make it pretty clear. A new flag design like the one presented may have better design principles, but no one will know what it represents. Unless we spent millions promoting it to get some brand awareness.

Just about the only thing that would make a flag easily identifiable as "Austin" (that isn't something "relatively" short term in our history like a guitar or bat) would be the image of the Capitol building. The San Antonio flag has the Alamo, which serves the same purpose without the actual words "San Antonio" on it. So something like that could work, but otherwise, I'd say leave it the way it is. Or just add some color and leave the crest and "City of Austin".

I give you the city flag of Chicago. It is very recognizable (the most recognizable city flag that I can think of). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Chicago

Visit Chicago and you will see it everywhere. There is nothing on it that says "Chicago", but it represents the city well (read the wikipedia page). People recognize it and citizens display it with civic pride. People from Chicago take the flag with them wherever they end up. It is very much like Texans love of their state flag. Visit any gift shop in Chicago and you're sure to see shirts, hats, coffee mugs, refrigerator magnets, mini replica flags, etc.



I like the proposal for the new city flag of Austin. Much like the flag of Chicago, it's clean, simple, and straightforward. It could become recognizable and well known too. The current flag is terrible. It's time to get rid of it.

[Tech House]

This is the first time in my 59 years on this planet that I've ever heard of city flags. My educated guess is that "who the hell cares" is the viewpoint of 99% of people everywhere regarding the design of city flags.

[lzppjb]

Yeah, I've never seen that Chicago flag before.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I give you the city flag of Chicago. It is very recognizable (the most recognizable city flag that I can think of). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Chicago

Visit Chicago and you will see it everywhere. There is nothing on it that says "Chicago", but it represents the city well (read the wikipedia page). People recognize it and citizens display it with civic pride. People from Chicago take the flag with them wherever they end up. It is very much like Texans love of their state flag. Visit any gift shop in Chicago and you're sure to see shirts, hats, coffee mugs, refrigerator magnets, mini replica flags, etc.

I like the proposal for the new city flag of Austin. Much like the flag of Chicago, it's clean, simple, and straightforward. It could become recognizable and well known too. The current flag is terrible. It's time to get rid of it.

Coming from Indy, most people from there easily recognize the city flag there as well. Obviously not nearly on the scale of Chicago, but it's something we did take pride in and wore/flew happily around town.



Examples:


And advocacy groups, such as INDYCOG, even brand themselves off the theme of the city flag as well.

[LoneStarMike]

More info on the current flag:

DESIGN: Austin’s flag has a white field with a heraldic shield in the center. On a field of 2 by 3 units, the shield, which has a triangular shape at its bottom, is about 1 unit high overall and about 2/3 of a unit wide. The shield is divided vertically in three equal stripes of red, white, and red. The top of the shield, or chief, is an inverted blue isosceles triangle bearing an ancient oil lamp, in gold, its spout toward the hoist. The shield is fimbriated with a narrow gold border. The crest of the shield rests on a white wreath, from which two large white wings outlined in blue rise vertically on either side of a gold cross bottonny. Silhouetted behind the crest in red is the dome and upper part of the state capitol. Centered in a curve counterclockwise below the shield is CITY OF AUSTIN in blue, across the center third of the flag.

SYMBOLISM: The crest comes from the coat of arms of Stephen F. Austin, for whom the city is named. (Austin was an early settler in Texas and the first Secretary of State of the Republic of Texas, and is often called the “Father of Texas” for his efforts in helping it win independence from Mexico.) The colors of the shield match the Texas state flag and the United States flag. The ancient lamp symbolizes knowledge, citing the educational advantages of living in Austin, where the University of Texas is located. The image of the state capitol and its distinctive dome marks Austin’s status as the state’s capital.

HOW SELECTED: In mid-1915, Mrs. William R. Wyse, editor of Gossip, suggested to Mayor A. P. Wooldridge that the city ought to have its own flag. The mayor appointed a committee of some 38 citizens to study the issue. That committee led to another committee of 10 to develop a process for selecting a flag. The city, through this committee, set up a contest and offered two prizes, one of $50 for first place, and another of $25 for second place, for an appropriate design. A third committee judged the more than 100 entries, a process which took several months.

DESIGNER: Ray F. Coyle, of San Francisco, took first place. Second place went to G. A. Geist, a faculty member at Texas A&M College.

MORE ABOUT THE FLAG: Coyle’s original design had a white star and crown on the chief, representing “The City of the Violet Crown”, but the committee suggested substituting the gold lamp in their place as more appropriate to Austin’s role as a center of education. The committee also added the blue to the wings of the crest to make them more visible.

In 1991, a citizen identified as “Murray” sued the city, protesting the use of the Christian cross on the crest as violating the separation of church and state mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that the use of the cross was a historically valid part of Austin’s arms, and could therefore be retained on the flag.

The above info was copied from a pdf file located within this story from KUT

I like the idea of incorporating a violet crown in the flag.

[resansom]

Here's what the flag currently looks like (from the Statesman article):

Here's the proposed replacement flag:

And here's another proposed replacement flag:

[KevinFromTexas]

The weird thing is I'm not sure I've ever seen Austin's flag flying anywhere...not even City Hall.

I still feel like if a new flag was to be adopted that it should have the State Capitol on it. At least the dome. CapitolMetro has always had the capitol dome in their name/logo. There's no doubt it's still the single most important and recognizable symbol of Austin.

[drummer]

I agree with Kevin - I've only seen it a couple of times, but surely not out in force like Chicago - or I guess even Indianapolis, though I've never personally been there to see it. If a new Austin flag comes about, they'd probably have it out a bunch just to show it off, which of course would take up a following because Austin is proud of Austin (can't complain). Anything that's chosen should be ideal. I agree with having the Capital dome in some respects, but (and I'm not suggesting, merely wondering) shouldn't the city have a little bit of separation from the State - if only for identity's sake? I realize the State is the reason Austin really exists in its current form so I'm not really opposed to the dome either.

[KevinFromTexas]

The other idea would be to do something related to nature. Maybe something with the hills and the river, and something violet as a nod to our city's nickname - "City of the Violet Crown". And of course then there's bats.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The other idea would be to do something related to nature. Maybe something with the hills and the river, and something violet as a nod to our city's nickname - "City of the Violet Crown". And of course then there's bats.

I vote for a flag with a rendering of a 400' residential rectangle with a bunch of bats flying by it.

[The ATX]

Let me just say that I have never eaten Blue Bell ice cream as far as I know, and I have no interest in what happens to the company. I also have no interest in making any political statement for or against Governor Abbot. But this Statesman photo is just screaming "Welcome to Texas and enjoy our listeria, ya'll!"


http://austin.blog.statesman.com/201...ernors-office/

[drummer]

I love Blue Bell. I would very much support a Blue Bell import store in China. Just sayin'...

[lzppjb]

Except the Blue Bell plant that had listeria was in Alabama, not Texas. Before that, Blue Bell had gone 108 years without a problem.

[KevinFromTexas]

Blue Bell's alright. It's not my first choice, though. I actually like HEB's brand better. Of course if anyone wants to offer me some ice cream I'll take it, even if it isn't from HEB.

[lzppjb]

I prefer Blue Bell to HEB, but I've bought more HEB in the recent years due to its price.

I like a harder ice cream, not one that is soft and creamy. That's why I prefer Blue Bell to almost anything. Really dislike soft serve.