The digital mapping project that I am focusing on is the Digital Harlem mapping project which, according to the site, “presents information, drawn from legal records, newspaper and other archival and published sources, about everyday like in New York City’s Harlem neighborhood in the years 1915-1930.” The website allows for the detailed research into individuals and individual events that occurred in Harlem. The level of detail in the map echoes the level of depth one can research on the side-bar. The map has the technical functions of an online embedded map, such as Google Maps, and allows for zooming-in to specific areas of interest.
The highlighted portion of the map reflects the Harlem neighborhood from the year 1915-1930, overlaying the current map of New York’s Harlem borough. This allows for the comparison of the modern city with the older streets, so that when stories and accounts are read, one would be able to further understand their contexts geographically.
The maps makes relatively few assumptions regarding the subject matter pin-pointed out on the map, but does emphasize the importance of the focus on mainly the Harlem neighborhood rather than other parts of New York City. Also, the overlay of the old Harlem map over the new ones, assumes that there are similarities in the city from the past and the present – geographically and culturally.The map, itself, reveals the unknown stories of Harlem, but at the same time obscures the stories not yet told and also does not clearly reflect the variety of cultural difference in just one neighborhood.
I find it interesting that in many larger scale maps, people complain that they obscure the stories of the people, but even when the stories are explored, like in the Harlem map, the same issues arise. Maps (and I guess data in general) seem to be a “best fit” type of approach, with the understanding that there is no perfect fit. Would you agree or do you think that there is some perfect fit out there somewhere?
I agree with you that they do not reflect diverse cultures and experiences that must have coexisted with general trend at that time. However, providing more research information on the side bar was a lot more helpful than other mapping project, since it made me wonder more about the location’s history and develop corresponding or opposite narrative from what is provided.
It is true that the cultural diversity is not completed represented in the map. However, I also thought that this particular map is a lot more detailed than the other ones, as it includes long explanations about people and events when you click on them. Although, I do agree with your point that they could include more details comparing Harlem in the past compared to now.
I noticed the obscurity as well. I thought it was interesting that it seemed like the stories of Harlem on this website felt incomplete and that it did not clearly reflect the variety of cultural difference in Harlem. Good job!
This map was interesting to me because I have spent a lot of time in NYC but unfortunately, have never made my way to Harlem. Its rich culture seems so distinct to that of its neighboring bureaus. I agree on your critics, and thought it was the most balanced of our choices. One thing I would have enjoyed to see, is if the map would have included information on its neighboring bureaus to allow the comparison on how each reacted to a certain event
I also reported on this website! I feel that the outlines of harlem really deter from actually getting sense of how big the area was. Maybe lighting up the thickness of the lines would help!