Below are the before and after versions of a map I did a while back as part of a project on neighborhood rehabilitation. The map covers a 5 x 8 block area in Oakland, and displays the 10 different land-use zones that exist in the neighborhood. The original map is roughly accurate down to the level of individual plots of land.
The goal of the project was to create a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization plan – this included improvements like adding curb bulbouts to make crossing the street easier and safer; installing tree-lined medians to beautify the neighborhood, narrow the streets and slow traffic; improving neighborhood lighting to make the streets safer at night; and opening a community center to help bring a sense of identity to the area. As part of understanding where these improvements should be made there were a number of studies done to understand the makeup of the neighborhood, and the above map was one of them (other maps looked at things like public transportation routes and locations of reported crimes over the last few years).
WHY DID WE REDESIGN IT?
There were several reasons:
1. This was actually part of a dozen or so diagrams from different sources that were given to us to use in the project. Coming from all different sources, the diagrams and maps had completely different aesthetics and didn’t fit with each or the overall look and feel of the project.
2. For budgetary reasons everything was being printed 2 color: green + black. For this map it meant that somehow we were going to have represent 10 zones with only 2 colors.
3. Whether it fit in with the aesthetic or not, the colors used in the original map are too bold and contrasty – creating a visual barrage the doesn’t encourage or reward deeper study.
4. Finally, and most importantly, the map technically showed the make-up of the neighborhood, but not in a way that clearly and easily revealed relationships and distribution of resources.
RESULTS
The solution was to break the map up into 10 smaller maps. It allowed us to represent everything with only 2 colors, and in doing so made it easier to read at a glance (it’s never easy to constantly refer to an elaborate legend to find out what each color means). Looking at the revised map, several things become clear which weren’t before.
• The “top” of the neighborhood is primarily residential (which was obvious before), but there’s a significant pocket of mixed use (commercial / residential) housing closer to the bottom.
• There are only two areas of open space, one is part of the elementary school located in the center of the neighborhood, the other is several blocks away on the far side of all the industrial warehouses and auto repair shops – not exactly the best place to send the kids off to play.
• There’s a strong religious community in the neighborhood, with a number of churches running along the main north-south route.
• There aren’t many neighborhood shops in the residential area. The commercial areas are primarily located along one east-west route and mixed in with the industrial spaces, which doesn’t encourage a pleasant shopping area.
WHAT WAS LOST?
The only possibly significant feature lost from the smaller maps was the ability to see exactly what bordered on what. The Industrial zone map located on the bottom left corner of the large map shows one small industrial zone up near the middle of the map. On the original map it would be easy to see exactly what surrounded that zone. With the new smaller maps, it’s possible, but not easy at a glance. It was clear from the beginning that we would lose that ability, but since the new maps reveal larger patterns and lead to a broader understanding of neighborhood makeup, it seems a reasonable trade-off to make.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
You gotta love the clarity of perpendicular numbered streets. I can easily interpret “I live on the corner of East 20th Street and 22nd Avenue.” as “I’m looking for a place on East 22nd and 20th. Street, Avenue… ahh yes, now you’re pointing a knife at me.”