What Will New York's New Map Show Us?

"On the new map, you can readily see where each train stops, but with less of a sense of where you are on the grid. Central Park, for instance, has been reduced to a small, deformed square. This change is not as helpful to tourists as it is meant to be, but, then, locals secretly think that, if you don't know where the B train runs, you shouldn't be on it."

"In Lewis Carroll's "Sylvie and Bruno Concluded," we learn of a map, described by an ambitious philosopher, that increases in scale bit by bit until it's the same size as the terrain it represents. Unable to roll the map out, its creators cheerfully realize that the country itself can serve as its own map. Perhaps the most beloved map in recent decades was Saul Steinberg's view of New York, initially a cover for this magazine."

Modern transit maps prioritize clarity of routes and stops at the expense of geographic context, producing distorted landmark shapes and weaker grid orientation. Travelers increasingly depend on phone GPS for precise navigation as schematic maps focus on function over place. Historical and artistic examples illustrate mapping limits: a theoretically full-scale map becomes unusable, and Steinberg's New York map captured a mental geography that omitted large swaths. Political mapping exposes a similar paradox: redistricting fixes boundaries around shifting populations, and attempts to engineer partisan outcomes can be undermined by changing voter allegiances and policy-driven mobilization.

Read at The New Yorker