Counting on Type
The other day on my way home, I entered the Columbus Circle 59th Street station and immediately felt disconcerted. It wasn’t the construction – the station’s been a mess for some time now – it was the temporary signage.
It didn’t match. It didn’t match the sturdy stuff on the platforms. The standard typeface, good ol’ Helvetica, that is applied (mostly) consistently across the system. Say what you will about Helvetica (and there’s much to say, if you saw the film last year), I never realized how comforting I found the signage of the subway system. (Pardon the fuzzy phone photos.)
Because, really, I don’t have anything against whatever it is in use – and I haven’t figured out what it is yet (close to Hel. compressed, but not quite). It was just so … foreign. And it toyed with me. A condensed here, and right next to it, a roman, and then an extended width. My mind raced: would I be waiting 20 minutes for a train? Would my beloved A Express go local? Were there signal problems on the line? Would I have to take the D and walk 30 blocks?
Perhaps as a designer, I’m more visually sensitive than some. But it hit home for me in that moment: design matters. Choice of typeface matters. Consistency in application matters. I never realized how reassuring I found the stability and clarity of the subway signs.
Days later, I’ve come to appreciate the quirky temporary signs. But I still don’t trust them as much as if they were in Helvetica.
You’re so right Liz. These signs look like they’re from another country.
Yeah, looking at them more, I think the sign makers just stretched the type (a no-no!).