Hey, there! Log in / Register
Is one of the T's problems its reliance on a sans-serif font?
By adamg on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 5:42pm
Steven Zimmerman makes the argument that maybe one of the reasons riding the T is such a dispiriting experience is because of its choice of fonts for signs:
Is it possible that in choosing a typeface which is devoid of personality and character, (at least in how it is used in public transit) and has on overly stogy appearance has rubbed off on the people that use this systems everyday ... or better yet, the entire brand of mass transit systems?
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Helvetica
The MBTA system was once the largest corporate use of Helvetica. They were also among the first in the world to adopt the font. It's a beautiful font.
never noticed
I've been riding the T 30 years and never noticed the font, which tells me it can't be too bad.
What the Helvetica?
There's a whole movie about the great typeface http://www.helveticafilm.com/ and as Steven Zimmerman notes, the MBTA actually uses Arial. I can see the nostalgia inspired by serif fonts, but I think the T needs a real shock to the system--would the T run better with the station logos redone in Comic Sans? Sounds like a dotcom era solution: if we just change the colors and fonts, we'll make millions.
Before there is a typeface makeover, please, some clever hacker print out some orange vinyl squares with white 800pt or so Arial Bold "M"s and pay a visit to Ruggles stations before the next Harry Potter premier. I can't believe that's not been done yet...
Arial?
I'm not claiming to be an expert typeface guru, but I am 99.9% sure the MBTA is using Helvetica (or at least not Arial) on the major signs in the areas I frequent. I remember paying closer attention to the signs after seeing that movie and thinking that every one was in Helvetica (e.g. the curves on the C's and e's come to a perfectly horizontal end; this is not the case with Arial). I even opened up Word just now to see what an Arial "G" looks like, and it's nothing like the "G" in the picture he has of the Arlington signage or the signs I see around the system (there's no tail at the lower right in Arial, but there is one in the sign).
And, for what it's worth, the Wikipedia article on Alewife points out that that station does not use Helvetica while the others do.
Eurostile
Alewife uses Eurostile. It was a failed experiment in updating the graphic design standards. The ones designed by The Cambridge Seven still reign supreme over 40 years later.
... but
But the MBTA actually uses Helvetica.
Helvetica was the critical
Helvetica was the critical element of the Cambridge Seven's Mbta Graphic Design Standards in the 60s. 1968?? Iirc.
Later, the T switched to buying its fonts at Building 19
Or, at least, it seemed that way.
They use both
The MBTA uses both Helvetica and Arial, and I actually think they do so by accident. In most of the major signage (e.g., station nameplates, etc.), the typeface is Helvetica. In the newer map printouts, they use Arial in the text.
How can you tell? One of the key ways to distinguish Helvetica from Arial is to look at the uppercase R's. The tail of the R in Helvetica has a nice curved slope from the bowl and flows straight down with a slight flourish at the end. The tail of the R in Arial juts out on a more diagonal, arguably less elegant slope.
I noticed this a number of years ago and it still irks me every time i see it, mainly for consistency's sake, but also because I enjoy Helvetica but dislike Arial.
T stations are not meant to be "experiences"
""this choice has also adversely affected the overall feel, experience and brand of transportation systems everywhere"
It is overthinking like Mr. Zimmerman's that leads to the overbuilt, impractical T stations as we now know them. Riding the T is not an "experience" in the sense of a "dining experience" or the like, nor should it be. The T should be basic and practical for one to get in and out of as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is not an art museum where one lingers. Witness those ghastly bullet shaped bronzelike things on pedestals at the Wood Island station. Exactly what are those? Are they supposed to be pleasing to the eye? They came along with the new station when it was redone and overbuilt in the mid 90s. A year or so ago one of them toppled over in a snowstorm and laid around there for ages before it was finally discarded (I presume). They serve no function, nor are they attractive.
Functional and appeasing
Functional and appeasing aren't mutually exclusive.
The original NY subway stations were designed with as much eye to their appearance as to their function.
http://www.nycsubway.org/articles/irtbook_ch1.html
And over a century later, you can still find the details that made the original IRT such an architectural gem.
Riding the T is not an
Riding the T is not an "experience" in the sense of a "dining experience" or the like, nor should it be. The T should be basic and practical for one to get in and out of as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is not an art museum where one lingers.
Why shouldn't it be? It's entirely possible to have beautiful subway stations:
Akropoli and Syntagma stations on the Athens Metro. (Notice the art, which is meant to have people linger)
Hösök-Tere station on the Budapest Metro.
Khalid Bin Al Waleed station on the Dubai Metro.
Formosa Blvd. station on the KMRT in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Pobeda Prospect station on the Kazan Metro in Kazan, Russia.
Zoloti Vorota station on the Kiev Metro.
Notting Hill Gate station on the London Underground.
The two Belorusskaya stations, and Komsomolskaya station on the Moscow Metro.
City Hall station on the New York City Subway.
Porte Dauphine and Cité on the Paris Metro.
Cardeal Arcoverde station on the Rio de Janeiro Metro.
Westlake station on the Seattle Link.
Avtovo station on the St. Petersburg Metro.
Rådhuset and T-Centralen stations on the Stockholm Metro.
I could go on, but these are a good sample of beautiful stations from around the world.
And closer to home, we've had the old Scollay Square headhouse, the old Harvard Square headhouse (which is still around, just used for something else these days), North Station rail terminal from before the Boston Garden was built on the same site, and the Copley Square inbound headhouse.
We just need to start designing and building attractive stations. It's not impossible, though it may be a bit tricky (and probably should have minimal or no involvement from artists and architects who work in styles developed after the 1930's, lest we get more Alewifes, Quincy Adams, Harvard Squares, or Wood Islands). We certainly shouldn't give up right away, as you appear to have done!
The T won't go for it
It WOULD be nice to have more attractive elements to T stations like the old Harvard Square headhouse, but I don't see the T going for anything like that. It just won't happen, it's not how they operate. They have a different idea of "attractive" and we are destined for more Alewife sprawling type stations, unfortnately.
Wood Island isn't bad
I disagree on Wood Island, I like the airy feel to it. I think it's a perfect match to a line that takes you to the beach. What don't you like about it? (The other ones, OK not so good. Harvard is especially claustrophobic.)
Wood Island
What I don't like about Wood Island Staion, which I take every day, it is that it offers virtually no shelter from the elements. It was impractically designed, by someone who never takes or took the T. When it rains, the rain pours in, as does wind, and everyone has to huddle and cram into one small area where the rain and wind do not enter. For those adverse to glaring sunlight, it offers no respite from that either. "Airy" doesn't make it when you are looking for shelter from the elements. The earlier Wood Island station, though bunkerlike in design, offered complete shelter. It was nothing to look at, but when taking the T I am looking for practicality, not a four star hotel.
Makes sense
I only took it on nice weekends when the sun was shining. Sounds like a real nightmare when you're commuting on those days when you'd just rather be home in bed.
I wouldn't call Harvard
I wouldn't call Harvard claustrophobic; it's really quite spacious for the most part. Just ugly from the new head house and plaza on down. Wood Island, aside from the weather issues mentioned by another poster, has those just ridiculous arches everywhere. They're not practical or well-proportioned. I guess it's better than the station used to be, but I think that someone told the architect to put some cheap decorations in somehow, never mind if they're any good. If it had to be brick, and had to have arches (I like both things), why not something more along the lines of Rockaway Beach in New York City. If you wanted it to be airy and arched, maybe look to Les Halles in Paris for inspiration. (Of course, most of the Form des Halles is abysmal, so be careful).
In any case, I think it could have been done considerably better.
The T should use Curlz MT.
The T should use Curlz MT. For everything. That would cheer people up.
Not Papyrus?
Curlz.
I heart Helvetica
The T is one of the first places I noticed Helvetica, and at that time it was very cool and cutting edge. Now, maybe 35 years later, it still looks good and up-to-date, and how many typefaces can you say that about? Although it's no longer exactly cutting edge.
This discussion is so great
I am so happy to read all these comments about typefaces. I thought I was the only one who ever noticed what typefaces were being used in various places, and had opinions about them. Yay. Also, I didn't know there was a movie about Helvetica. Thanks for that, too.
Great typeface book
From fellow typography geek to fellow typography geek, here is a book you MUST own:
http://www.amazon.com/Just-My-Type-about-Fonts/dp/...