New York City changing its street signs

[BBTV]

I think this is the original thread on the clearview font -

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=51854&view=&hl=clearview&fromsearch=1

[BlueSky]

The more I look at this, the more it bugs me, and this is purely about the signs. Aren't the lower-case letters disproportionately large? They come almost to the top of the capitals on these signs. In normal typeface, lower case letters are roughly half as tall as upper case. If it bothers me, how in the world could the font nerds sign off on it?

Because this has everything to do with legibility and nothing (or at least considerably less) to do with aesthetics.

Yeah, well, call me crazy but when the letter sizes are mismatched I find it distracting, and distractions = bad when it comes to street signs.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Horrible move. NYC's street signs are iconic.

New York City's street signs are certainly not iconic -- anymore. Nowadays our street signs are standardised and ordinary; but they once did approach "iconic" status. Not long ago, each significant borough had its own instantly-recognisable colour scheme.

Manhattan (and Staten Island): blue on yellow

Brooklyn: white on black

Queens: blue on white

Bronx: white on blue

(All images from Forgotten New York.)

I found it sad when these were replaced with standardised green signs. A bit of visual culture lost. So, for this reason, I was happy at the return of a different bit of visual culture that was equally iconic: the New York State licence plates' reverting to the traditional colours of blue and yellow, after a couple of unattractive designs using blue letters on a white background.

[Radiohead]

If anyone has a hard time reading the large caps signs, perhaps they shouldn't be driving in the first place. Personally, I think the safety studies are bunk.

This is the kind of thing you can propose when there are budget surpluses. But when your state is mired in debt, such expenses are absurd. This is when you need leaders who challenge the federal mandates and say..."no, we're not going to do this right now". In this environment, there's no way the feds would cut funds....the backlash would be too intense. I have relatives in NY (Long Island), some Dems, some Repubs and a few Indeps. All are fed up with the fiscal irresponsibility. This shouldn't be a party issue or ideological issue. It's just an issue of common sense.

[loogodude90]

The more I look at this, the more it bugs me, and this is purely about the signs. Aren't the lower-case letters disproportionately large? They come almost to the top of the capitals on these signs. In normal typeface, lower case letters are roughly half as tall as upper case. If it bothers me, how in the world could the font nerds sign off on it?

Because this has everything to do with legibility and nothing (or at least considerably less) to do with aesthetics.

Yeah, well, call me crazy but when the letter sizes are mismatched I find it distracting, and distractions = bad when it comes to street signs.

Yeah, but I don't think the idea is to get you to stare at the street signs out of awe or digust while driving. I think the idea is to incorporate a font that has been "proven" to be more legible at certain distances. If you are staring at street signs while driving for any other reason than to read the sign, and you get into an accident, I think it's safe to say that it's your own fault (as opposed to a hard-to-read-font).

[BlueSky]

The more I look at this, the more it bugs me, and this is purely about the signs. Aren't the lower-case letters disproportionately large? They come almost to the top of the capitals on these signs. In normal typeface, lower case letters are roughly half as tall as upper case. If it bothers me, how in the world could the font nerds sign off on it?

Because this has everything to do with legibility and nothing (or at least considerably less) to do with aesthetics.

Yeah, well, call me crazy but when the letter sizes are mismatched I find it distracting, and distractions = bad when it comes to street signs.

Yeah, but I don't think the idea is to get you to stare at the street signs out of awe or digust while driving. I think the idea is to incorporate a font that has been "proven" to be more legible at certain distances. If you are staring at street signs while driving for any other reason than to read the sign, and you get into an accident, I think it's safe to say that it's your own fault (as opposed to a hard-to-read-font).

Have to love irony. That's exactly my point! Are the current signs illegible? No...so what margin of improvement are we talking about, and is it worth the monetary investment? My feeling is the gains in legibility are negligible when weighed against the expense of replacing all the signs.

[sc49erfan15]

[quote name=cesarano' date='October 14, 2010 - 12:26' timestamp='1287073574'

(All images from Forgotten New York.)

I'd just like to point out that I spent about 2 hours on that site. Completely fascinating. And I've only been to NYC once. Thanks for sharing that!

[edit] why is it quoting me? I was talking about cesarano's link to "Forgotten New York" ... and that's what shows up when I try to edit the post. Weird

[edit again] now it's quoting my signature. This is fun!

[kwhey]

Big government run amok. To hell with each and every politician.

[rams80]

Not much of a huge difference. The article says, though, that the changes are happening because of Federal law. What law is that, exactly?

It is part of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and if a city doesn't follow it they risk losing federal funding for street projects. This is occuring nationwide.

More Government Mandated Horse Manure (for lack of a better expletive!) t we have to lose $27 Million of our heard earned money to the Safety Nazi Nannies.

YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION? COUNT ME IN!!!

I'm not sure you actually want a revolution. Sees as conservatives tend to ultimately lose/perish horribly in large quantities in said revolution.

/Shouldn't it be counter-revolution anyway?

//Speaking as someone with crappy eyesight, any improvement to street sign visibility and legibility is fine with me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT, upon further thought, I'd like to see how much is spent annually on street signs in New York to begin with. Somehow I suspect the price tag is not that much lower than what they spent on this project, because to be honest $27 million isn't a lot for a city the size of New York.

[andrewharrington]

The more I look at this, the more it bugs me, and this is purely about the signs. Aren't the lower-case letters disproportionately large? They come almost to the top of the capitals on these signs. In normal typeface, lower case letters are roughly half as tall as upper case. If it bothers me, how in the world could the font nerds sign off on it?

Because this has everything to do with legibility and nothing (or at least considerably less) to do with aesthetics.

Yeah, well, call me crazy but when the letter sizes are mismatched I find it distracting, and distractions = bad when it comes to street signs.

Yeah, but I don't think the idea is to get you to stare at the street signs out of awe or digust while driving. I think the idea is to incorporate a font that has been "proven" to be more legible at certain distances. If you are staring at street signs while driving for any other reason than to read the sign, and you get into an accident, I think it's safe to say that it's your own fault (as opposed to a hard-to-read-font).

Have to love irony. That's exactly my point! Are the current signs illegible? No...so what margin of improvement are we talking about, and is it worth the monetary investment? My feeling is the gains in legibility are negligible when weighed against the expense of replacing all the signs.

Many of the signs are due to be replaced anyway, and they have until 2018 to phase out all the old signs and replace them with Clearview-lettered signs. In fact, I believe the put the mandate out that the entire country has to be Clearview-lettered by 2018.

Here is a good, in-depth history of all that went into the typeface's creation: http://clearviewhwy.com/ResearchAndDesign/

[andrewharrington]

The more I look at this, the more it bugs me, and this is purely about the signs. Aren't the lower-case letters disproportionately large? They come almost to the top of the capitals on these signs. In normal typeface, lower case letters are roughly half as tall as upper case. If it bothers me, how in the world could the font nerds sign off on it?

Because you're probably not a font nerd. The lowercase letters are always more than half as tall as the uppercase letters. Two-thirds is a better ballpark average for the height ratio of lowercase to uppercase in 'normal' typefaces. Why are you so bitter about something that helps drivers make less navigation mistakes?

[DEAD!]

Not much of a huge difference. The article says, though, that the changes are happening because of Federal law. What law is that, exactly?

It is part of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and if a city doesn't follow it they risk losing federal funding for street projects. This is occuring nationwide.

More Government Mandated Horse Manure (for lack of a better expletive!) t we have to lose $27 Million of our heard earned money to the Safety Nazi Nannies.

YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION? COUNT ME IN!!!

I'm not sure you actually want a revolution. Sees as conservatives tend to ultimately lose/perish horribly in large quantities in said revolution.

/Shouldn't it be counter-revolution anyway?

//Speaking as someone with crappy eyesight, any improvement to street sign visibility and legibility is fine with me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT, upon further thought, I'd like to see how much is spent annually on street signs in New York to begin with. Somehow I suspect the price tag is not that much lower than what they spent on this project, because to be honest $27 million isn't a lot for a city the size of New York.

Call it RevoluC!ion

[BlueSky]

The more I look at this, the more it bugs me, and this is purely about the signs. Aren't the lower-case letters disproportionately large? They come almost to the top of the capitals on these signs. In normal typeface, lower case letters are roughly half as tall as upper case. If it bothers me, how in the world could the font nerds sign off on it?

Because you're probably not a font nerd. The lowercase letters are always more than half as tall as the uppercase letters. Two-thirds is a better ballpark average for the height ratio of lowercase to uppercase in 'normal' typefaces. Why are you so bitter about something that helps drivers make less navigation mistakes?

Bitter? Not at all, just seems like a classic "ain't broke so don't fix it" deal. So some font nerds were up in arms over a few discrepancies in the current font. That's justification for changing every street sign in the country? Overkill. The proof is that there's little media coverage and it's only being discussed at all by obsessives like us. Nobody else cares and few people will even notice the change, so obviously there wasn't any glaring need to spend a lot of time and money on this.

[andrewharrington]

The more I look at this, the more it bugs me, and this is purely about the signs. Aren't the lower-case letters disproportionately large? They come almost to the top of the capitals on these signs. In normal typeface, lower case letters are roughly half as tall as upper case. If it bothers me, how in the world could the font nerds sign off on it?

Because you're probably not a font nerd. The lowercase letters are always more than half as tall as the uppercase letters. Two-thirds is a better ballpark average for the height ratio of lowercase to uppercase in 'normal' typefaces. Why are you so bitter about something that helps drivers make less navigation mistakes?

Bitter? Not at all, just seems like a classic "ain't broke so don't fix it" deal. So some font nerds were up in arms over a few discrepancies in the current font. That's justification for changing every street sign in the country? Overkill. The proof is that there's little media coverage and it's only being discussed at all by obsessives like us. Nobody else cares and few people will even notice the change, so obviously there wasn't any glaring need to spend a lot of time and money on this.

The main issue is that, by the time this is phased in, the baby boomers (a large portion of the driving population) will be in their 70s. Most of the characteristics of the Clearview typeface benefit older drivers the most. It seems they saw an approaching need (and figured it would benefit others as well), so why not develop something to improve the signs for the future? I don't see it as changing something that wasn't broke. There are tons of highway signs that need replaced anyway, so why not make them more functional in the process? It makes perfect sense. It's not like they're not taking down all these brand new signs that were put up last month with the old font. They're replacing them more or less on schedule with when they would have been replaced anyway. I think if we, as a society, just took everything as it was for 'good enough,' we wouldn't be where we are today. We're curious and progressive, and we're always striving to make things better. I just don't see how that's a bad thing.

[loogodude90]

The more I look at this, the more it bugs me, and this is purely about the signs. Aren't the lower-case letters disproportionately large? They come almost to the top of the capitals on these signs. In normal typeface, lower case letters are roughly half as tall as upper case. If it bothers me, how in the world could the font nerds sign off on it?

Because this has everything to do with legibility and nothing (or at least considerably less) to do with aesthetics.

Yeah, well, call me crazy but when the letter sizes are mismatched I find it distracting, and distractions = bad when it comes to street signs.

Yeah, but I don't think the idea is to get you to stare at the street signs out of awe or digust while driving. I think the idea is to incorporate a font that has been "proven" to be more legible at certain distances. If you are staring at street signs while driving for any other reason than to read the sign, and you get into an accident, I think it's safe to say that it's your own fault (as opposed to a hard-to-read-font).

Have to love irony. That's exactly my point! Are the current signs illegible? No...so what margin of improvement are we talking about, and is it worth the monetary investment? My feeling is the gains in legibility are negligible when weighed against the expense of replacing all the signs.

Hmm. You know what, I actually agree with you when you put it that way. I do think that it's a net loss when you factor in money. I was trying to reason why they would make these changes, but when you put money into the equation, you're right, it's basically an unneeded and expensive overhaul.

[andrewharrington]

But it's not costing that much more money in the long run. Sure, it sounds like a terrible idea when someone throws out $27 million in an article, but it's not like they're writing a check for $27,000,000 and getting a bunch of signs in the mail. The current signs need to be replaced anyway. They're replacing them over the next few years, which is when most of them were due to be replaced to begin with. It's not really a difficult concept. They'd be spending the money anyway replacing the current signs that have the old font with new signs that have the old font. The only difference is they're replacing the current signs that have the old font with new signs that have the new font. There's very little extra money being spent here.

[xTr1pleXx]

Not much of a huge difference. The article says, though, that the changes are happening because of Federal law. What law is that, exactly?

It is part of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and if a city doesn't follow it they risk losing federal funding for street projects. This is occuring nationwide.

More Government Mandated Horse Manure (for lack of a better expletive!) t we have to lose $27 Million of our heard earned money to the Safety Nazi Nannies.

YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION? COUNT ME IN!!!

You do realize that the song that the line "you say you want a revolution" is from is about how the people advocating a "revolution" didn't have a plan and were being too extremist, and explictly says "you can count me out," right? Also, that the artists of said song were very left-leaning.

As for the signs, I'm not a big fan of how they look, but I get why they're doing it. There has to be a way around the federal regulation mandating white-on-green street signs - I know plenty of cities using white-on-blue (though that may be allowed under those federal regulations), and obviously NYC also uses white-on-maroon in its historical districts (which cover a large portion of Manhattan).

I've always wanted NYC to have iconic street signs, ones that would be immediately recognizable as "NYC." That can certainly happen within the federal regulations. I know and 5th Avenue, and maybe some other streets around Midtown, the signs often have the Statue of Liberty on them - perhaps that should've become part of all the new street signs.

The money being spent on this really is not much though: http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2010/09/30/the-real-cost-of-changing-nyc-street-signs/

[andrewharrington]

Cleveland Street signs are white on blue. I haven't been back to check and see if there's any of them have been updated yet, though. The highway signs around Cleveland are gradually shifting over, though. They are much easier to read.

[Mac the Knife]

Anyone here, point out one significant advantage of the new vs. the old. One.

I can point one out pretty clearly: with the new sign, you're a mile closer to the exit.

[SDX]

I like the new signs. Also off to NYC on saturday can anyone recommend must see places?