This is not a sentence that many people say, but honestly if you actually analysed street signs and gave them more thought than just their practical use, you would understand what I am talking about.
From a design point-of-view they are interesting because they are primarily for practical use, they exist to work as a marker or guide to help people navigate cities.
When designing something that has a primary function other than being visually pleasing it should always be on the mind of the designer. It is interesting to see the old street signs poking out from behind the newer versions or sitting side by side, you can see how different the "trends" of the times were. And if the building is listed or a heritage site the street sign will have to adhere to strict rules and regulations.
The above example is interesting, because the old original sign is still present and still legible. So it isn't redundant yet the city has placed a new sign right underneath it, which begs the question: why? If the primary function of the sign is still in tact, and it fits with the aesthetic of the building then why add the new sign? I can understand why people don't appreciate street signs for more than practical tools but this baffles me.
In a way street signs represent identity. They provide an identity to a street and even over the years when streets change and signs change they still fulfil the same purpose. It is interesting walking through Manchester's city centre and seeing all the old faded signs or disused covered signs, it is easy to forget how different the streets had once looked.
Locations hold meaning to them, something of interest will have happened on everyone of these streets. Regardless of whether they were important to the history of the city or of one individual citizen it still holds a huge amount of heritage. And identity.
