For my blog post I decided to research the changes that can be seen in the New York City metro maps over the past century. I am fascinated by maps and I believe that there are so many qualities of a map that point to the culture and style of the time it was made. The colors that are used, the names, the key, and just the general style that is used when creating a map are all supposedly chosen to make it the most discernable. Maps are made to help people after all, right? It’s interesting though, because I feel like when I look at older maps they feel cryptic and stylized, as if the New Yorkers of the past thought differently than we do, and a map with calligraphy and flourishes was easier for them to read than the simple ones we have today, with broad lines and bright colors. This kind of subway map that we know of today was first introduced in 1972 by an Italian-American designer- Massimo Vignelli. When his design was first introduced, a lot of people hated it. It was too Modernist, and the bright colors were obnoxious. But a lot of people also loved it- it was clear, easy to read, eye catching, and fun. In the 70s, people were becoming more open minded and were ready for change.
-
- 1934
-
- 1939
-
- 1949
-
- 1958
-
- 1964
-
- 1967
-
- 1972
-
- 1985
-
- 2010
Some of the most notable differences that can be seen between the maps of 1934, 1939, and 1949 and the maps of 1958 and 1964 is how the style moves away from a realistic projection of New York City, complete with ragged coastlines, green parks and islands to a more simplistic projection where the land borders are smooth and information that is not pertinent to the subway system seamlessly melts into the background. The 1920s might have been the start of avant garde, Modernist, and Abstractist art- but these styles did not work their way into the canon of everyday designs for functional things until the 1950s. After that, you can also witness a large shift in design between the map of 1964 and 1967. The 1967 maps uses jewel toned colors and the projection of the city is nearly indistinguishable, hidden in the background. Manhattan seems to be bulging from the weight of it’s extremely dense population and Queens and Brooklyn spread out into the distance. Then, the big change with the introduction of Vignelli’s map: the type face changes, the colors expand, and parks are reintroduced (well, some of them). Also the projection starts to look a bit more realistic, but still looks foreign to me- someone who is used to looking at a more accurate shape on the map I have in my pocket- Google Maps. A more naturalistic map is introduced in the 80’s, perhaps because of a cultural shift that is moving away from the artistic and into the functionalist realm. Parks and street grids are reintroduced, and by 2010 the entire city is in display, all five boroughs. The behemoth of our subway system is all laid out, this design maybe not the most pleasing to look at- but it does provide a sense of completeness- that all of the information one needs is available in one place.
-Julie
I decided to focus on maps also but your analyzation of the subway maps is an interesting perspective. Its also interesting to compare maps to google maps because the shapes are altered so everything fits on the piece of paper. Even when you look at todays subway maps, the avenues aren’t evenly spread apart, and the distance is very inaccurate.
I really appreciate the unique perspective on our nearly century-old subway system that you chose to look into. I enjoyed how you broke down the map of each decade and discussed the cultural influences that the city, or rather the people had on each respective map. I think it’s representative of how the city’s culture is engrained in the smallest aspects of the city, and this blog is a great representation of this notion. Great work!