Thank you for your obsessive attention to detail, including in this example of Wright typography. I have observed during a lifetime of Wright studies that his choice of typefaces (now called fonts for some reason), whether commercially available or drawn in-house, invariably included circular C, G, O and Q (and zero) forms, and semicircular B, D, P, R and S elements---in accord with his preference for unadulterated geometric form. This Unity Temple typeface, however, has always struck me as a bit lumpy---Roman forms with rather random line widths and peculiarities like the extra-wide V and the M with vertical end-strokes. Not the most graceful example of the type (ahem) ? But it's pure Wright, not a more orthodox "off the (typographic) shelf" 'face . . .!
This piece is beyond wonderful... It could easily have stopped at "Wright’s Original Conception" and I would have been happy, but no... you went the extra (s)mile. Thank you!
(and thanks to Daring Fireball for pointing me here...)
Once, on the way to my cousin's wedding, we passed a man setting stencils for a "NO PARKING" area. He looked confused, and got our attention - "I can't figure out why this looks wrong, but it does."
We quickly and gently pointed out that the N was laid out backwards.
Now, with an architecture and construction background, I recognize how simple (simple!) it is to mount letters incorrectly.
Those H's probably came with zero mounting instructions, and it's not like a designer was putting them up there.
While that scan is clearer, it doesn't show us anything about Wright's original intent, because it's from a 1967 survey done by the Chicago Dept. of Historic Preservation. The drawing I included, while grainy, is from Wright's original Unity Temple plans so it's the more useful document, despite the lower image quality.
Former print production person here. I apologize up front for my cynicism, but I just said I was a *production* person.
I worked extensively with big-named architects once upon a time.
Architect’s love to pat themselves on the back about type design. Also their hair, their BMW, etc. But they are not type designers, nor typesetters, nor are they ever present for quality control. From my desk this article makes it clear that the root cause is a creative mind that didn’t even think to provide the necessary production information to secure his intended design. Alas.
Frank Lloyd Wright as Yet Another Demanding-Yet-Flakey Architect surprises me but stops long short of shocking me.
I love this kind of detecting. I am also something of a type nerd. So you will excuse me when I want to point out another flaw in the lettering: inconsistent word spacing. Especially the "AND THE" one is off my miles — way too wide. In the original design everything is way more balanced, which is consistent with the basic training of architects and draughts people at the time (Signage was considered an essential part of architecture — not like the current generation of architects: they depend on faulty software). It appears that in the execution a lot went wrong. As in the subject of this discourse.
Yup, spacing/kerning is also an issue. I decided not to get into that because I wanted to keep things focused on the inverted letters, but maybe I should have at least mentioned it.
Interesting catch. Wright used a font he created so there is no codified source other than his work. You might look at other blueprints to use as a reference. In any case this was a great catch and an interesting puzzle lost to the ages.
I can confirm that those of us with a prominent "H" in our name are, I think, sensitive to aberrations of our favourite letter. "H" - which I take to signify "breath", "spirit" and "humour". (Although since I grew up as the son of a printer, that may attune me to the shapes of differing letter-forms too.)
What a treasure trove of research! I especially liked that you summarized it in a table at the end of the article. I'll start looking at building signage in a whole new way now.
Ha, the table was as much for my own sake as for yours! Lots of info, so it was helpful to lay it out in an organized manner. (Also: Tables are fun to make!)
Low-waisted Hs are not unknown in lettering by architects of that vintage (though admittedly especially high-waisted Hs are more common, and in any event the E always follows suit)
And no one is bothered by the much more noticeable extra space between AND and THE on the bottom line?
And that G in GOD is way narrower than M in man?
Thank you for your obsessive attention to detail, including in this example of Wright typography. I have observed during a lifetime of Wright studies that his choice of typefaces (now called fonts for some reason), whether commercially available or drawn in-house, invariably included circular C, G, O and Q (and zero) forms, and semicircular B, D, P, R and S elements---in accord with his preference for unadulterated geometric form. This Unity Temple typeface, however, has always struck me as a bit lumpy---Roman forms with rather random line widths and peculiarities like the extra-wide V and the M with vertical end-strokes. Not the most graceful example of the type (ahem) ? But it's pure Wright, not a more orthodox "off the (typographic) shelf" 'face . . .!
Reminds me of the upside-down B on top of the entrance gate to Auschwitz that states: “Arbeit macht Frei” https://www.auschwitz.info/en/b-the-sculpture.html & https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_umgedrehte_B (In German only).
Someone needs to make a fun animation of the timeline, bonus points for pure CSS
TLDR: “some letters are upside down and I have too much time on my hands so I’m going to dig into it.”
And here I thought it had something to do with nukes and Frank Lloyd Wright. Talk about click bait.
Muted so I never waste a moment again on this rubbish.
“ And here I thought it had something to do with nukes and Frank Lloyd Wright.” —> Best/funniest comment ever!
This piece is beyond wonderful... It could easily have stopped at "Wright’s Original Conception" and I would have been happy, but no... you went the extra (s)mile. Thank you!
(and thanks to Daring Fireball for pointing me here...)
Once, on the way to my cousin's wedding, we passed a man setting stencils for a "NO PARKING" area. He looked confused, and got our attention - "I can't figure out why this looks wrong, but it does."
We quickly and gently pointed out that the N was laid out backwards.
Now, with an architecture and construction background, I recognize how simple (simple!) it is to mount letters incorrectly.
Those H's probably came with zero mounting instructions, and it's not like a designer was putting them up there.
Library of Congress has a higher resolution scan of the building drawings btw (just not signed by Wright himself) https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/il0318.sheet.00003a/
While that scan is clearer, it doesn't show us anything about Wright's original intent, because it's from a 1967 survey done by the Chicago Dept. of Historic Preservation. The drawing I included, while grainy, is from Wright's original Unity Temple plans so it's the more useful document, despite the lower image quality.
Former print production person here. I apologize up front for my cynicism, but I just said I was a *production* person.
I worked extensively with big-named architects once upon a time.
Architect’s love to pat themselves on the back about type design. Also their hair, their BMW, etc. But they are not type designers, nor typesetters, nor are they ever present for quality control. From my desk this article makes it clear that the root cause is a creative mind that didn’t even think to provide the necessary production information to secure his intended design. Alas.
Frank Lloyd Wright as Yet Another Demanding-Yet-Flakey Architect surprises me but stops long short of shocking me.
Also, fantastic work by the author ; ).
I am a member of Unity Temple and will share this with staff!
I love this kind of detecting. I am also something of a type nerd. So you will excuse me when I want to point out another flaw in the lettering: inconsistent word spacing. Especially the "AND THE" one is off my miles — way too wide. In the original design everything is way more balanced, which is consistent with the basic training of architects and draughts people at the time (Signage was considered an essential part of architecture — not like the current generation of architects: they depend on faulty software). It appears that in the execution a lot went wrong. As in the subject of this discourse.
Yup, spacing/kerning is also an issue. I decided not to get into that because I wanted to keep things focused on the inverted letters, but maybe I should have at least mentioned it.
Interesting catch. Wright used a font he created so there is no codified source other than his work. You might look at other blueprints to use as a reference. In any case this was a great catch and an interesting puzzle lost to the ages.
I can confirm that those of us with a prominent "H" in our name are, I think, sensitive to aberrations of our favourite letter. "H" - which I take to signify "breath", "spirit" and "humour". (Although since I grew up as the son of a printer, that may attune me to the shapes of differing letter-forms too.)
Howard
What a treasure trove of research! I especially liked that you summarized it in a table at the end of the article. I'll start looking at building signage in a whole new way now.
Ha, the table was as much for my own sake as for yours! Lots of info, so it was helpful to lay it out in an organized manner. (Also: Tables are fun to make!)
Low-waisted Hs are not unknown in lettering by architects of that vintage (though admittedly especially high-waisted Hs are more common, and in any event the E always follows suit)
That's why I included FLW's original drawing -- to show that his intent was a high-waisted H.
Indeed, FLW, like many architects, was rather fastidious about lettering.
Interesting find, then the whole plot gets crazy!