Signs of the Times

Signs of the Times

Typically, or at least in my career, faƧade consultants and engineers do not get excited about street signage. In fact, we caveat this out of scope. Itā€™s best placed with the manufacturers but also not covered well in faƧade guidance literature. Normal course is to comment on waterproofing and discuss reaction loads back into the faƧade logically. Unless the signage is of note, rule of thumb, faƧade folk tend to steer clear.

Therefore, Iā€™m not looking for signage finesse when out and about, other than to provide direction to or confirm arrival at a location. However, some signs are interesting in that they have spanned time and still exist in a different era. The more obvious ones are advertisements of brands, or trades that no longer exist, which are generally in the unforgiving permanent medium of paint. Theyā€™re painted onto either older brickwork, or render. These have their own genre and are documented as ā€œghost signsā€ within preservation groups here.

The following signs are more poignant in that they confirm a nationā€™s most preeminent fears at the time. The interest is not only the difference in perceived threat, but how faƧade signage has evolved from the semi-permanent directly painted (lead-based) to the interchangeability of metal. The original drivers for this were a combination of speed and economics. The financial struggle that Britain was in during the 1940s meant that production was focused on armaments. Whereas in the 1960s, Americaā€™s economy and range of manufacturing capabilities was by comparison relatively effortless to quickly produce single purpose metal signage.

When something was painted it was by default expected to last, or the issue of removal or change fell under the ā€œnot my problem banner.ā€ The advancement in signage and its ability to be kinetic and accommodate different digital form is of course more sustainable now, but I still donā€™t get excited about this part of facadesā€¦ Although I like the less wasteful component, naturally. That said, weā€™re working on re-introducing a heritage sign from the past, which is interesting, a separate post.

The first sign is from c.1940, located in London. This photo was taken opposite Claridgeā€™s on Brook Street, facing North, this makes the sign c.85 years old, a testament to lead-based paint. The ā€œSā€ stood for Shelter, which is also written but traverses the mortar line and not so easily read. There were designated shelters across London which ranged in size and scale but all with the same purpose, cover from bombing raids. I donā€™t know whether this was a Deep Level Shelter but images can be found here. However, the entrance leads below an arched Portland stone street bridge, which by all accounts appears to offer the most cover in the area.

The second sign is located, (confirmed exactly by the other sign in the photo) in New York City, facing Southwest with The Church of the Transfiguration to the other side of the street. During the early 1960s a nationwide programme to protect the country from the hazards of radioactive fallout from nuclear attack was commissioned by the government. Almost 63 years ago to the day, on Oct 4th 1961 the first signs were revealed by Robert W. Blakely.Ā  However, questions surrounding survivability, mainly driven by the volume of very ordinary sized and range of buildings have led to the scrutiny over their effectiveness as a fallout shelter. Additionally, should the unthinkable happen, questions are raised as to whether the signs now misdirect due to the duration of time past, with building owners having since changed internal fit-out and layout perhaps.

Both signs now serve as a bleak reminder of past behaviours. Personally, I think some should remain, if only to provide a cue for what not to do.

Author: David Kelly