Search

The visualization aims to show how maps, especially those used in the context of urban policymaking, are politicizing certain kinds of aesthetics about how the city should look. There are conflicting meanings of what is public use and the definitions of blight, which index social and political dimensions of how urban life is spatially located. How might you visualize these two arguments in the image? Could you perhaps show an X and Y axis of demographics of these areas which are classified as blight ?

The visual is a found image, taken from the National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, Washington, DC. Library of Congress. Is is not clear in which year it was published, but it seems historical. The black and white color adds to that impression. The grayscale makes it harder to interpret which areas are "obsolete" and "blighted" – but the darker shade draws attention to the "inner city" as a problem area.

The caption elaborates on the project and theory but does not engage with the visual as such. Currently, the map might simply be seen as an instance of planning discourse -- but more descriptive detail would be helpful – and to see what else is going on.

The visual is interesting, and I would love to hear more about the archive that it seems to come from. At this point it is not yet clear what the ethnographic purchase of the image is -- but it could easily become relevant. Are there any other images that you could juxtapose/contrast it with?You could take a look at Danica's caption and visual of federal land ownership in the US -- what kind of sentiments are usually linked to the map that you are showing us here?

The image and caption point to the toxic dynamics of urban planning discourse -- such as the obscuring of race, gender, and class through a "neutral" stance. As I said in my other annotations, the conceptual link between image and text could be brought out more. What do we learn from this visual about toxics that we could apply to other images?