Where can I get font styles we like to use?

[Anonymous]

Anyone know of any sites where I can download font styles we architects/draftsppl use?
Or whats's your flavor?
We are standardizing our office and we need to lay down the law. No more
28 different font types on every sheet...lol

[David Pacifico]

You can find some here:
http://www.parch.com/storeoo/gos.html

Over time I have come to like Arial.
Everyone has it.
It plays nice with others when exchanging files.

[Anonymous]

I agree (generally) with David about using Arial for the "body copy" (notes, dimensions, etc.). It is clear, compact and comes installed on every computer sold. Other reasonable choices are Lucida Sans, Futura and Optima, but these are only common not ubiquitous. I don't see the need to make an aesthetic statement with a typeface to be used at 7pt (appr 2.5mm). Clarity and compactness are most important for this purpose.

With the exception of display faces for some presentations, I consider hand lettered style typefaces inappropriate for computer generated documents. I remember the days of painstakingly using Letraset or Kroytype to make the drawings look more crisp and professional. The only reason the notes and dimensions were hand lettered was speed, if we could have typed the dimensions we would have. In fact, general notes, etc. were often typed onto sticky-back. The qualities of hand drawing that are important to preserve are in the drawings themselves, not in the lettering, and even that is important only for presentations not construction documents.

I am a very strong believer in making the best looking drawings possible, and that this is best acheived by making the most of the tools at hand, not trying to make them look like something else.

My recommmendations are:

For notes and dimensions: Use Arial if you are going to be doing a lot of file exchanges with various consultants etc. and if you find the look is acceptable. If you want to refine the look a bit, choose a typeface that is clear (i.e. easy to read at small sizes) and appropriate to your style. Futura works well for modernism. Optima and Lucida Sans are nice for a more traditional look. Other reasonable choices are Gill Sans, Franklin Gothic and of course good old Helvetica (which Arial closely resembles). Use only sans-serif (or lightly serifed) fonts. Full serif fonts like Times suffer readability problems below 9pts (3mm).

Drawing titles and note headings can be something fancier like Times, Garamond or Palatino. I wouldn't go overboard with any elaborate display type here as it looks a bit forced and artificial. Understated elegance is the watchword here.

Title blocks are the place to get fancy if you feel it is appropriate for your firm and the impression you want to make. I have seen this range from simple with one typeface everywhere and only the font size varies, to elaborate with several faces used in a high style title block.

The main thing to remember is that your documents communicate who you are and how you choose to present yourseves to others and should be designed accordingly. The basic rule is to keep it simple. If you don't know why you need that extra fancy typeface then you don't.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Matt and David...
I agree with you Matt on those "hand lettered" fonts...
I mean, are they supposed to fool the viewer into thinking those were actually hand lettered? Its a CAD drawing for crying out loud. Whats next- computer generated smudges and overlapping "stylish"linework on elevation drawings? ha!

[Anonymous]

Perhaps we need coffee ring and donut spot symbols for the builder sets.

[Dwight]

That is dangerous. In the seventies my boss made a coffee ring on a plan and it got built into th project as an extra spiral staircase. We weren't great drafters.

[Djordje]

Matthew wrote:
Perhaps we need coffee ring and donut spot symbols for the builder sets.

AFAIR Ole Salmaan did make a GDL object of the coffee ring Or someone else, from Germany I am sure!

[Dave Jochum]

Matthew wrote:
...With the exception of display faces for some presentations, I consider hand lettered style typefaces inappropriate for computer generated documents...The only reason the notes and dimensions were hand lettered was speed, if we could have typed the dimensions we would have...The qualities of hand drawing that are important to preserve are in the drawings themselves, not in the lettering, and even that is important only for presentations not construction documents.

I am a very strong believer in making the best looking drawings possible, and that this is best achieved by making the most of the tools at hand, not trying to make them look like something else...The basic rule is to keep it simple...

Matthew,

I agree completely with your stated goals of producing great looking drawings. And the prime reason for producing great looking drawings, is because they will convey the information much better than an ugly set. The methods of producing these aesthetic drawings are the same whether by hand or by computer, only the tools change. Organization, line weights, alignment, spacing, hatching (poche-ing), etc., are the ingredients no matter the production method. That's why, for the generation of architects that "grew up" drawing by hand, they will not be able to create great looking drawings electronically if they couldn't previously by hand.

So there is nothing inherently superior (or inferior, for that matter) of computer generated architectural drawings over those drawn by hand. Good design is good design. I must say, however, that I have seen many drop-dead gorgeous hand drawn CDs over the years and far fewer of the CAD variety. It's all in the creative use of the tools.

I don't disagree with the statement that Arial is a very clean, readable font suitable for architectural work. And for someone who has compatibility issues as a primary concern, it could be a wise choice, indeed. To my eye, though, it is not superior to a chisel-point "architect" font such as MrHand (based upon the hand lettering of Francis Ching, as I'm sure most people know.) MrHand and HeavyHand are good fonts to use because of their high degree of readability, not because they "look hand drawn". A thin vertical line with heavier, slightly angled horizontal counterpoints, and round, open interiors, create a balanced, immediately discernible letter that promotes eye movement through the words. Good design is good design.

Did we really hand letter notes because it was the fastest method to employ? Word processors, Kroy machines, and typewriters (in the "olden days") were the weapons of choice when only shear speed was the concern in my offices (3 am, client due in at 8.) With a more relaxed schedule we used rub-on letters for large scale titles (say, 24 pt. and larger.)

I started my reply agreeing with you, and I'll finish likewise. We do need to make the best use of the tools at hand, and if we are trying to create an artificial look, we will most likely fail at the most important task at hand--conveying information. And "keep it simple" is always a good mantra.

[Anonymous]

Dave,

I agree with everything you said. Good hand lettering can be a very effective and even beautiful way to express ideas (as in Francis Ching's excellent books) and hand lettered faces certainly have their place in typography. The user just has to keep in mind the artifice of it and understand what they are expressing by their choice of type.

Of course good hand lettering is still important in itself. As much as I use the computer (and have for many years) a hand drawing, hand lettered is still frequently the best way to communicate ones ideas. And hand rendering is still the gold standard when it come to schematic design presentations.

I also agree that there are far more beautiful hand drawn CDs than there are computer generated ones, both in quantity and quality. It seems that we are all just beginning to get a handle on how to go about making the most of this new tool. I have my doubts that the computer drawings will ever be as good as the best that can be done by hand, but they are already able to be consistently better than the average hand drawn set. (That's in my experience. Back in my days as a contractor I saw some pretty bad drawings.)

One of the great things about this forum being able to communicate with so many others who care as much as I about improving the state of the ART in architectural practice.