safehouse

Click on the stars to rate this FontStruction.
Balanced Rating: 8.46
Average Rating: 8.51
Click for more information about this rating. 8.46 41 votes

by typerider

Cloned from Peghole by typerider.

143 305846

Minimal stencil font. lowercase, numerals and some punctuation. More on http://typerider.wordpress.com/
Info:

Created on 5th September 2009. Last edited on 6th September 2009.
License:

Creative Commons
Categories:
Sets:
Tag:
- Minimal(439)
- Stencil(749)

29 Comments

PS: Crackhouse was renamed 'kraakhaas'.

Comment by typerider 6th september 2009

Very simple, very expressive. The only problem, it wasn't my idea. :))) 10/10

Comment by Frodo7 6th september 2009

Yes, minimal but very groovy stencil. Take my 10, of course.

Comment by chavez ravine 6th september 2009

Thank you very much.

Comment by typerider 6th september 2009

Both safehouse and crackhouse are very well designed. I have preference for crackhouse, which would be perfectly suitable for a brit pop gig poster or an underground party flyer. It's another 10.

Comment by igorrossi 6th september 2009

nice modern stencil with an attitude :)

Comment by funk_king 6th september 2009

huh, thanks all. very pleased with the messages!

Comment by typerider 6th september 2009

Well Igorrossi, you're probably right. Safehouse is technically better but it becomes almost too even on the eye. Crackhouse has these irregularities that make it more adventurous. And some letters keep together better. Secredly I like it better too…
P.

Comment by typerider 6th september 2009

Great pair of cousins :) Gets my 10

Comment by p2pnut 7th september 2009

Congratulations! FontStruct Staff have deemed your FontStruction worthy of special mention. “safehouse” is now a Top Pick.

Comment by gferreira_admin 7th september 2009

cool stuff! (x2)

Comment by jmarquez 7th september 2009

I can see what you did here. Very simple. In fact, too simple. I can't see why this was made a Top Pick. I can barely tell the "v" from the "u". You need to do something about the "m" and "n", too. And I'm even gonna talk about the "7". Sorry to put this down, but I just don't see how so many people, especially Frodo7, could like this so much.

Comment by Mel O'Mann (aaaalllleeeexxxx) 7th september 2009

Well Alex, sorry you can't see it. The thing is: if you limit the game to a very small grid it sets its own rules in which you can move. the inner logic of the first characters made takes over. And then it becomes very hard to keep it simple. I only play with fontstruct in this experimental way. Beyond that it doesn't really interest me. I get bored fast stacking bricks on bricks. I know it is not perfect, but it is never too simple.
Look at all minimal modular fonts out there (bauhaus, krouwel, olyf…) and you will have the same problem. V's are too close to u's, m's are always too wide. But there is an achievement in finding a logical compromise and a kind of abstract beauty. That is how this kind of game is played.
Anyway: your critique is welcome. I mean that. The early 10's were nice but a bit over the top. Greets, Peter.

Comment by typerider 7th september 2009

Oh, one other thing. Never judge a minimal (or maximal) font on it's character set. See it in text, at least in some words. Wordshape counts, and you would be surprised how many seemingly 'unlogical' decisions in some characters make them work well in words. P.

Comment by typerider 7th september 2009

Typerider, you've very adequately answered aaaalllleeeexxxx 's reservations, but let me rush to your defence anyway!!

Any fool can add doodads to make glyphs more legible (any number of intaglio's fonts!) but minimal+legible+elegant takes a special elan, and that's what the staff rewarded, I believe. Congratulations, a considerable achievement.

Comment by intaglio 7th september 2009

Thanks,
much appreciated, especially from you, Intaglio!

Comment by typerider 7th september 2009

@ aaaalllleeeexxxx : the rating system has been discussed a lot in the topics concerning the next new features of FS, and I think a 10 rewards from now on as well a good design, which is worth being noticed, and a truly great fontstruction. The nuance is to be found in the comments. Differently speaking, you may understand a 10 as a "I like" flag.

Comment by igorrossi 8th september 2009

For my part, I merely don't rate a font I don't like or when I think it's not worth it, rather than giving it a low rate.

Comment by igorrossi 8th september 2009

@ aaaalllleeeexxxx: I think I have to reply to your comment. Style and beauty comes in different shapes and sizes. In Fontstructor the brick is the final, atomic level; you can not go beyond that to increase the details. As you approach this final frontier, you have less and less bricks to build
letters from, and the number of permutations drop precipitously. You also have to negotiate the increasingly difficult options for spacing, and settle for an acceptable compromise. At that level you need all the skills and
creativity to make something aesthetically pleasing as well
as functional. Typerider masterfully achieved that, and the
Top Pick is well deserved.
On "too simple": Simplicity is often a virtue in art. There is a
style and movement called minimalism (a.k.a minimal design) can be traced back to the 1920ies: in architecture, graphic design, and of course typeface design. We can see its lasting influence on contemporary web desing too. If you want to learn more about style and beauty in this field consider the following book: The Elements of Typographic Style by Robert Bringhurst. It's a typographic classic already and should be under the pillow of any prospective designer.

Comment by Frodo7 8th september 2009

Well Frodo, you are the man! refering to Bringhurst in the discussion about a modular stencil font. But thanks for that. Strolling around in this wonderful playground which Fontstruct is, doesn't mean we can't have the other end of the rainbow in mind: textface type design. 'The elements of typographic style' is indeed my number one tip to all my typography students from the first class on. A little bible I consider it. Your name is not really Frodo, is it?

Comment by typerider 8th september 2009