I love maps. Also, information design in general, like graphs and stuff. But especially maps!
My very first freelance design project was designing a guide/pamphlet around a map for the Ohio & Erie Canal. I met an actual cartographer (Yes! They still exist! MapQuest maps are not magically computer-generated!) and he introduced me to the intricacies of map-making. (Hi, Ken!) Since then I have appreciated maps as unique design problems: like all information design, form must follow function. But form is what the viewer notices first, and bad form can destroy function.
- The new 2010 MTA subway map.
Anyway, the MTA (that’s New York City’s transit authority, and they have actual underground trains, which is awesome. *sigh*) has redesigned the subway map for the first time in a decade.
Overall the design changes are subtle, but I think they’re mostly important. I like the color changes… they feel more contemporary, which feels right for NYC. I think the focus on the bulk of the system makes sense, over the previous map which lent more space to Staten Island. (Perhaps New Yorkers would feel differently… anyone?) The drop-shadow under the subway lines? Eh, not so crazy about that. Supposedly it makes the lines stand out more, but generally speaking I tend to think drop-shadows are over-rated. In this case they were handled just fine, they don’t take away from the legibility, but on something with so many intricate details I think adding to the visual clutter was risky.
Take a look at the earlier maps shown in the article as well… I’m a big fan of the simplicity of the 1972 map.
For me, the 1972 map was the Subway! I loved it’s total abstract detachment from the physical landscape. The notion that the MTA was like a transporter device…where you pop in one station and emerge in another without regard to landscape.
Unfortunately, even a modicum of abstract thinking is sadly missing from about 80 percent of humans.
Of course someone named “traverse” would love maps.
Things like this make me wish we had a nice interactive clickable map for Metro.
A lot of people seem to love the abstract Vignelli map, and admittedly I have never tried to use it, but I can’t imagine it would be nearly as helpful as the current map. When I’m looking at the map, I’m usually trying to get to a particular place, and so I need to see how the subway stops relate to the surrounding area.
The 1972 map was an excellent design, but a failure because they called it a map when they should have called it a diagram. People were pissed that it wasn’t to scale, and couldn’t wrap their heads around Central Park being shaped like a square.
Agree about the drop-shadow lines, by the way. Completely unnecessary – the bright colors stand out fine by themselves.
The ’72 map was good, but even it didn’t go far enough. I prefer submay maps like those for Berlin and Munich, which show nothing whatsoever about the above-ground topography. I appreciate the implicit attitude: if you don’t already know the city by heart, what the hell are you doing here?
Staten Island has one train. It could be the size of a postage stamp and no one would care. It’s only useful for the 5 people who visit Staten Island each year who don’t already know where they’re going.
@7, both of those are based on Henry Beck’s original topological map of the London Underground, arguably the most important piece of cartography and graphic design in the history of the world.
The Vignelli map (diagram? I like that observation, @5) makes me want to go home and watch The Warriors. I see that map, and the theme song starts playing in my head…
The new map is still unreadable shit.
I’m a fan of the ’72 map as well from a design perspective, it reminds me of when I lived in Japan. However, as a tourist, I appreciate the connection to actual topography of the current map. Not that you even need to look at a map anymore, there’s an app for that!
Also, @8 is correct. Staten island is a very utilitarian place and not suited to the random tourist. I took the ferry there the last time I was in NYC just to walk around and check it out and I couldn’t get back on the ferry fast enough. What a blight.
Not a fan at all of the 72 map/diagram, nor the German tube maps @7.
Topography and scale help people learn their way around easier, which is the whole point of maps to begin with. If there’s an “implicit attitude” that one should know the city by heart already, does that mean everyone should just stay in whatever city they grew up in, never traveling or moving elsewhere?
I love the London and Paris subway maps, but they work because the streets above are completely confusing and illegible no matter how well represented. You just have to surface as close as possible to your target and muddle through from there.
Manhattan being gridded, and the subway lines running under its streets and thus largely gridded as well, it makes sense to have an above-ground/below-ground correspondence.
The biggest improvements are the savage excisions of text clutter at bottom, and the demoting of Staten Island to an Alaska-like box. It’s still ridiculous to represent the Hudson as an ocean with nothing on its western shore.
What’s weird is that the map is just about the only well-designed element of the entire MTA, probably because it originally came from Vignelli and they have not been able to fully mediocrify it through various modifications since. I can guarantee the drop shadow comes from the same team that “designs” the MTA posters in the subway reminding you not to run, ride between cars, etc. Also, those same posters have been known to make copy editors’ heads explode.
@12: Staten Island is less “utilitarian” “blight” than endless, endless commuter suburb. But if you had hopped off the ferry onto that single train line, you might have found the odd historical gem such as this one at the other end of the line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_…
I prefer this redesign myself.
Why can’t they come up with one to scale? Goddamnit