270 – 271
Tom Wagstaff
“Maps are neither mirrors of nature nor neutral transmitters of universal truths. They are narratives with a purpose, stories with an agenda. They contain silences as well as articulations. They are biased, partial, and selective” . Through comparison, discrepancies are revealed, providing insight to the agendas that inform the process of mapping More London. A number are immediately obvious – the size of the central public space has been exaggerated and the size of various buildings reduced as a consequence [the scoop, 7 More London Place]. The data sets also reveal a dispute as to where the estate’s ownership ends and begins. Figure 3 makes these discrepancies legible within two dimensions, revealing the problematic notion of privately owned publicly accessible data and how this, much like the filtering of users, projects a fictional alternate vision of reality. To better comprehend the realities represented in these initial two models, a third was needed. The third architectural model is the manifestation of an empirical reading of the site. It is an architectural visualisation of the intangible spatial systems, which permeate the physical matter of More London. Rules, regulations, access, security, political connotations, fear of terrorism, behavioural determinism: these variables of the space directly define the surveying and extraction of data, as well as the physical outcome: [Figure 5]. • When half of a building is inaccessible, one can only assume the other half does not exist. • When regulations prohibit certain methods of data collection, one must find another, less regulated action to acquire it. • When regulations are not written, but verbally communicated (and ostensibly fluxional) one must adapt, amend and collect data, by any means available.
When the third model is placed adjacent to the models of privately owned and publicly owned data, the freeing and manifestation of empirical data into the public realm becomes pertinent. The models demonstrate how between the privately-owned projection of the site and the experienceable reality of the site, lies a gaping void. This work provides perhaps the most pure, tragic understanding of More London. The estate, through its publicly owned data, and contrary to the empirical data, so wishes to perceive itself as an agent for public good that it is hyperbolic in its self-portrayal. It is so deeply rooted in the neoliberal reality that it exists within, that More London cannot comprehend the problematic actuality of the space outside of the post 2007 governmental definition of ‘public good’. At its core, and materialised in the third model, it is no more than a highly regulated, highly filtered slate smoking area for financial consultants that, through its material existence, promotes a deceitful societal reality [Figure 6]. Robert Park’s understanding of the city as a factory that fabricates its citizens alludes to a broader, more profound, significance of Private Cartography; the built environment can be applied as a lens to interrogate the implications of neoliberalism on society as a whole. A critical analysis of the city inevitably and inadvertently examines those that inhibit it; “what kind of city we want cannot be divorced from the question of what kinds of people we want to be”.
1
Jacob, C. and Conley, T. (2006) The sovereign map:
Theoretical approaches in Cartography through history. Edited by dward H. Dahl. United States: University of Chicago
In order to survey these heavily regulated spaces, a methodology of surveying tools and techniques, informed by the embedded legislation of the site, had to be developed. These methods evolved from the need to be inconspicuous to the regulations enforced by security and CCTV. Four regulatory-inconspicuous methods were developed to survey and extract data from the site. They utilised anthropometrics, bikes for measuring distances and angles [Figure 1], hidden cameras on long exposure, rolling balls to measure gradients, and when all else failed, the covert casting of publicly accessible architectural models.
Press: Page xiii. 2
It is important to note that the ordinance survey data is a
cartographic act and as such is not wholly objective. However there is little conceivable reason for an impartial third party to actively manipulate the data. 3
As the two data sets vary in composition and geometry they
are anchored on 6 More London Place [corrugated building in bottom left corner]. 4
As stated in the preface, in 2007 the definition of public good
in the context of the public realm moved from a community centric emphasis to a definition informed by economic benefaction. 5
Harvey, D. (2013) Rebel cities: From the right to the city to
the urban revolution. London: Verso Books: Page 4