The first one would be cool if it were on a website somewhere, the second one....meh.
As of now I have four favorite architecture firms, all of whom have very simple "logos"....

http://www.mvrdv.nl/
http://www.saucierperrotte.com/
http://sitenewyork.com/frame/index.htm
http://www.archi-tectonics.com/

I find that their choice of font is certainly a reflection of their style - and i think that is a good thing.

I think the C and E might be clearer if you used axonometric projection.

@blkkkkk

http://sitenewyork.com/frame/index.htm is not really a shining typographic/graphic example, IMHO.

@blkkkkk

Thanks for all the examples. I looked into those. I completely agree that a nicely treated typography based logo is always one of the best bets.

In this case however I want the mark to have an identifiable quality & an "abstract while obvious" sort of thing going on with it in keeping with the company's approach. I plan to add the company name in a suitable type & at the most appropriate location as well, once I am satisfied about the mark.

But I will keep your suggestion in mind. I will definitely try out a few logos, experimenting with only the company name, CE in this case, set in a suitable typefaces and will upload them soon.

@1985

I did try to put the "open-enclosed" space when viewed in perspective (at a very weird angle of course :)). I settled at a viewing angle where the C & the E were clear but not in your face obvious.

I will try out some more angles & post them ... maybe a dimetric or oblique view ...

By all means, experiment with various projections!

I really like the second one. It's sparse. Architectural. And the 'C/E' isn't so obvious as to be boring.

The 'smash initials into a logo of some sort' seems to be a trend that is getting tired (*cough* ignore the logo to the left of this post *cough*) but I think it's done well in this case.

I second everything Darrel (aluminum) said. Really like it.

I love the idea. Subtle but smart. However it doesn't feel finished yet. I'd try different perspectives, different weights.
I don't know if it's only me but there's something about its weight that makes it fragile as it is.

Yeah, I love the idea, but I'm usually partial to that kind of idea so there's that. But it seems to me that it has to be further developed. Somehow, something's missing; I see it as not yet strong enough.

I also don't think blkkkkk's examples are great… in fact, I think they're all pretty weak when compared with something like what you're showing, in terms of concept and of graphic strength and interest. But again, and as aluminum said, I'm “bored” with this constant use of industrial-like grotesques in all caps. It screams nothing. It's like shouting silently or with nothing to say. It's just lifeless. It kind of plays along with a sense of nihilism which is common in this day and age – and which I thoroughly understand but usually try to fight –, like it's saying “life has no meaning and nothing really matters; I'll scream, but I won't ignore that”. But that might be what you're looking for and it does have its uses, of course.

So I'd somehow play around with your idea a bit more. Maybe try to make it something like the second alternative but strengthen the notion of it being a volume, which might not be readily seen the way it is now.

But, if you're aware of the possible shortcomings of what you've got there, such as the one I said and the fact that the letters might not be immediately perceived, and that's what you were going for, then I think you could probably stick with that second one and leave it at that. Then maybe you could make some use of the first one in developing the mark to make it stronger and wider-ranging in some application, but I think the second could be a final stand-alone mark. Just remember that if you're going to add text to that then you'll probably need to use some thin type that doesn't overpower the mark.

I agree that the concept is strong, but the execution is unfinished and unrefined. It feels far too fragile.

Maybe spend some time checking out Typotecture and similar studies? There's a lot of cool stuff to inspire: Typotectur, Typography as Architectural Imagery

@ruben
@1985
that was exactly my point. All of the examples I gave are very simple as I clearly stated. When I said simple I meant simple.
In other words, k.i.s. (stupid)

I think awsamosa's submission to the forum is simple. The examples you gave, however, in my opinion, the way I see things, are not really simple; just dismissive of any thought, lazy. When I look at those I just think the designers, whoever they are, were only giving in to a trend, and one which, as is common with trends, is so diluted that might have lost its meaning and strength. I'm familiar with MVRDV and their work and have thought about their logo before and “criticized” it to friends precisely because of this, because I think the logo doesn't do them justice at all; the other ones I wasn't familiar with, but still, only one of them wasn't following that same pattern, and I considered that one still not unique enough to be remarkable.
I don't see any real thought put into those, and I see some thought put into awsamosa's mark. That's how I was disagreeing with what you said. I wasn't criticizing you, I was just trying to show awsamosa another way of looking at what was on the table. This isn't about you…
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear and if I in any way came off as offensive towards your opinion and ideas.

That being said, I'd like to emphasize that I was once asked to design a logo/mark for an architect friend and I think awsamosa's idea isn't exactly new and wonderfully original (I thought about something along those lines, too, but with far less success), but I do think it does easily beat grotesques in all caps. (BTW, that project of mine is still unfinished business precisely because of the challenge this can be and also because it really wasn't that urgent.)

Thanks for responding everyone! :)

I am sorry for being a tad bit late with the replies .. I was just off experimenting with the viewing angles and for some reason i just kept coming back to the one I had ..

Believe me when I say I viewed if for every angle possible. Somehow none/most of them didnt have the effect I was trying to go for. I did settle on a few alternate ones though. I am posting them here. Please let me know what you guys think? Or maybe should I just stick to the original view?

@ aluminum, nina, DavM, rubenDmarkes

Glad you like the concept :)

@ Alaskan,

Thanks for the great link!

Tried out some variations with the weight and also the feel of the space. I didnt want the enclosed space to become very hard and heavy so was going for a lighter stroke. I did alter the stroke width a little bit though. Here are the results. basically I have just made the strokes more blockier and/or heavier. Anything worth pursuing in these?

Sorry if the images are distorted. They are low resolution shots of my screen.

Btw, rubenDmarkes, I'd love to see your work along the same lines, which you mentioned in your last post.

Also, I made some other alternate ones for the same firm. I am posting them here too .. Let me know what you guys think? Maybe your suggestions will help me take the logo in a completely other/better direction?

Finally, thank you so much everyone for the feedback so far. Obviously the mark must get much better than what it is in the present. So keep your feedback coming please :)
And like I mentioned earlier, please be unmerciful with it.

I like the translucent view 2, but still like the simplicity of your first render (though perhaps that first version could be a bit thicker?)

In your last post, alt 1 is way to generic. Alt 2 is interesting, though. But I get a completely different vibe with that than I do with your first logo. Your first logo (to me, at least) says "modern architecture" or "engineering" while the the last one says more "Arts and Crafts" to me.

I feel your original concept has a lot of possibilities, and your "view 2" is the one I like best, although the very slight difference in angle of the strokes in view 2 (caused by perspective) bothers me as it's so slight that it almost looks like a rendering error. I know its deliberate, but try making them truly parallel and see if that helps.

I wouldn't make the strokes any thinner than they are in view 2, as when they become thinner (like in view 1) they start resembling a weird pitchfork.

You might find this article on logo trends helpful as it shows several examples (in the "Hexahedron" section) of 3D shapes rendered with translucent elements, similar to what you're doing:

http://www.logolounge.com/logotrends/

Nice work with the isometric CE, did you ever try an oblique view. Or with the first option breaking it down to simple shapes. Just what I was thinking looking through them

I think #3 at 11.Jun.2010 2.24am is excellent. It is obvious what it is, it is unusual and through that it is memorable. The alternatives are interesting, esp. #1, but they are IMO weaker in comparison, and they feel a bit forced.

Hm... though you may want to test it for obviousness with random people. Some just do not get the negative space.

You may want to have a look here:
http://www.mobiel-pack.nl/

D'oh! This is not good!

Don't mind the mobiel pack. YOu can always change viewing angle and make it look different. I think your logo is much better in this regard except that I'd change the view to make the CE more visible. The last pack shows a block better than a CE.

But the idea is GREAT. Stick with it.