In “Night on Earth”, it speaks about Michel de Certeauʼs experience of “Seeing Manhattan from the 110th floor of the WTC.” It talks about a “migrational city” that “slips into the clear text of the planned and readable city.” Even from the birds eye view, there are parts of the city that cannot be seen, movements that resist rationalization. The article then compares this to the different vantage points as seen by a cab driver and the mayor of NYC.
Compared to a set of construction documents for a building, this is not all that different from looking at an overall plan and then a set of detail drawings. Could the vantage point of the cab driver be a detail of how the city works and is put together?
Can the city be mapped or built by the inside view or vantage point of the cab driver alone, or does there still need to be some kind of overall comprehension of the city?
In “Walking the City” it is said that the operations of people walking can be traced on city maps as a way of transcribing their paths and trajectories. However, the reading says this kind of mapping is missing the act of passing by: the operation o walking, wandering, or window shopping.
Is it possible for this activity to be mapped or shown as some kind of trajectory?
Is the architecture or the people informing the mapping, or both?
In “Mapping Places” the some of the examples described seem to explore the limits of our visual realm. We can only see an comprehend to the limits of what are eyes can contain. If we want to see more we must turn our head, leaving other things out of our sight. Even if we could see 360 degrees, are our brains built to be able to comprehend what we are seeing?
If you think about this in the concept of mapping, is there a limit to what we can comprehend?
If you try to map everything, will it get to a point to where things be come to much or unclear?