 So Matthew Wilson is currently the distinguished Larry Bell visiting associate professor at the University of British Columbia. And he's also associate professor of geography at the University of Kentucky and a visiting scholar at the Center for Geographic Analysis at Harvard University. At the University of Kentucky, he co-founded and co-directs the New Mappings Collaboratory, which studies and facilitates new engagements with geographic representation. His most recent book, New Lines, Critical GIS and the Trouble of the Mapp, which his talk today draws on, is just out from the University of Minnesota Press. I encourage you all to read it if you haven't already. Wilson's work is remarkable and appropriate for our task here today because of the way in which, in his scholarship, he somehow manages to be both simultaneously embedded in and at a critical distance from practices within the geographic information sciences and debates on the social history of mapping within critical geography. In his current research on mid-20th century digital mapping practices, he takes up the technocultural contexts of mapping technologies in order to make arguments about the forms of knowledge and of world making that these enable. Leah Meisterlin is an urbanist, GIS methodologist, and I would add gifted educator. She is assistant professor here at GSAP in the urban planning program. And broadly, her research engages issues of spatial justice, informational ethics, and the effects of infrastructural networks on the construction of social and political space. Her current work explores the ways in which digital technologies are restructuring urban spatial politics and altering methods, both contemporary and historical, of urban research. Meisterlin's cartographic work, masterfully in my mind, uses design to inform captivating and powerful maps, but also to understand methodological rigor as itself deeply creative, situated, and designed. Meisterlin is co-author of The Buell Hypothesis, Rehousing the American Dream, an editor of comments on foreclosed following the exhibition foreclosed, Rehousing the American Dream at the Museum of Modern Art in 2011. In their two talks, I'm very excited for how they each differently take up a core tension that we've already sort of heard hinted at so far today. Embedded in the cartographic view, the tension between fixing time and examining space in order to address the operation of maps in the production of knowledge and of space. Please join me in welcoming them. All right. Thank you so much there. It was really wonderful. And thank you for organizing us. And thanks to Laura for the invite. And many thanks to the AV staff. I've apparently sent them some corrupted animated gifts, but they've managed to help out this pesky geographer. Hopefully. All right. Maybe. I don't think I can do anything, right? I just sort of enjoy. All right. Very good. Well, thanks again for hosting this event. I've been so inspired by all the ideas and the wonderful sorts of engagements around something that, as a geographer, we sometimes take for granted that there are so many interesting points of intersection with a variety of domains and disciplines and to some of the core concepts that I think still animates so much of what we do in geography and more specifically in human geography. This is as a way of sort of expanding on sort of some of the trouble I intend to get into. My background is largely in GI science, something that we would sort of definitely introduce ourselves as if we were applying for money from the NSF, but more generally a kind of more recent codification of a long standing debate within geography and more generally within the social sciences about the role and the sort of privilege granted to quantification in scare quotes within our field. And my background in that I think has allowed me to kind of skim across the surface, somewhat undetected in a field that is otherwise constantly asking questions about its own role in society more generally and its own role within a discipline that is increasingly scant on university campuses, including this one. So what I wanted to do is sort of talk through a chapter from my recent book New Lines and Thanks Dare for the plug where I try to suggest that this idea of maps that move is trying to play off a long standing interest within cartography about effectivity and leaning more toward more recent work within human geography about the effective dimension of cartography. So maps that move both in the sense of maps as having an animated component to them, but maps as also that critical effect that captures our attention, that holds us on the page you might say, that forces us to sort of trace with fingertips where lines may lead. And so I wanna take up these particular maps that move. Let's see if these work. All right. What we would call animated maps. On the left, an animated map of Lansing, Michigan by Alan Schmidt created in late 1960s. On the right, an animated map of tweets related to Ferguson, Missouri created in 2014 by the company Cardo appearing in the online edition of the Washington Post. Both animations are born of incredible leaps in computing and geographic representation, although separated by nearly 50 years. Both attempt to represent the spatiality of social phenomena across a map plane. Both are meant to inspire as well as instruct. And yet there was and is uneasiness with these productions as they rub against an establishment cartography as well as a persistent critique of the command and control of geographic representation. Far from attempting to resolve these tensions, I hope to get a little muddy in their mixing. And what follows, I wanna present some map animations from the cartographic archives while reading them with and against the grain of cartographic scholarship and spatial theory. My conclusions are tentative, but I suggest that the techniques of cartographic animation and the techniques of cinema are sutured. And as such enables ways of thinking and acting through map animation beyond the purely effective. In doing so, I wanna explore some potential epistemological irreducibles. Not in order to reconcile their remainders, but as Donna Haraway would insist to stay with the trouble. To illustrate this trouble, let's take up some writings by Doreen Massey, the late feminist geographer and Ken Fields. To begin with Doreen Massey, whose ruminations on space, time and representation beg us to unsettle our most basic assumptions and consumptions regarding space and liveliness. What bothers Massey is articulated at the beginning of her book for space. Quote, equations of representation with spatialization have troubled me. Associations of space with synchrony exasperated me. Persistent assumptions of space as the opposite of time have kept me thinking. Analyses that remained within the discursive have just not been positive enough, end quote. But she continues, quote, representation is seen to take on aspects of spatialization, setting things down side by side of laying them out as a discrete simultaneity. But representation is also fixing things, taking the time out of them, end quote. So here Doreen Massey sorts out a series of formulations offered a century earlier in a book called Matter and Memory by Henri Bergson, that of an opposition between duration and space. The trouble of the relationship between duration here thought as time and spatialized representation here thought as space is at the heart of Massey's argument of, quote, space as the dimension of multiple trajectories, of a simultaneity of stories so far as the dimension of a multiplicity of durations. She continues, quote, the problem has been that the old chain of meaning, space, representation and stasis continues to wield its power. The legacy lingers on, end quote. And this is perhaps where our slack jaw watching of these kinds of animated maps begin to take a critical turn. Massey argues, quote, space conquers time by being set up as the representation of history, life, the real world. The very life and certainly the politics are taken out of it, end quote. Perhaps another reaction to the reduction of space to stasis, although less philosophically sublime can be located in the writings of behavioral cartographers on the topic of animated maps. At its most abbreviated, less than 140 characters, is the tweet by Ken Field of Esri, quote, I'm wondering when people will realize the animated ectoplasm Twitter maps don't actually show anything, end quote. Undoubtedly a lob at Cardo and the proliferation of these kinds of animated maps on Twitter's data, Field's critique might be read alongside a persistent uneasiness in the development of animated cartography. While there is much to Field's critique, we might draw parallels to Danny Dorling's suggestion 20 years plus earlier regarding animated cartography, quote, there is no reason why the map should remain fixed while the action is played out upon it, end quote. While Massey does not directly address animated maps, we can perhaps read into her critique of the stultifying effect of these kinds of geographic representations. Here, cartographer and spatial theorists alike are unsettled by the animated map, perhaps sharing in a recognition that in the worst case, these representations serve to stabilize and depoliticize space in spatial relations and at its best are just not very effective devices for communicating information about space. But let's stay with the trouble. At this point, I wanna introduce another theorist into the mix to help us in thinking through the implications of animated maps as cinema. In Cinema One, Deleuze begins by working through Bergson's theory about memory, movement, and image on cinema, quote. In short, cinema does not give us an image to which movement is added. It immediately gives us a movement image, end quote. The operations of cinema to produce a movement image, a concept he borrows from Bergson, requires some technical conditions to include, quote, not merely the photo, but the snapshot, the equidistance of snapshots, the transfer in this equidistance onto a framework which constitutes the film. He continues, it is in this sense that the cinema is the system which reproduces movement as a function of equidistant instance selected so as to create an impression of continuity, end quote. He continues, but it is here that the difficulty arises. What is the interest of such a system? From the point of view of science, it is very slight, one of analysis. Did it at least have some artistic interest? This did not seem likely either, since art seemed to uphold the claims of a higher synthesis of movement and to remain linked to the poses and forms that science had since rejected. We have reached the very heart of cinema's ambiguous position as industrial art. It was neither an art nor a science. The development of animated maps mimics this kind of ambiguity as neither art nor science. And while there have been significant attempts to claim the science of animated cartography, it has been a slippery subject. Consider these key entries in our brief history of animated cartography. Norman Throar in a piece titled Animated Cartography published in The Professional Geographer in 1959 establishes the key furniture in the development of the field. He writes, quote, although in the past the animated drawing has been associated particularly with entertainment and advertising, it is being used increasingly for scientific illustration. Maps lend themselves particularly well to animation. By the use of this technique, we can add another dimension to cartography time, end quote. But this additional dimension would be non-trivial. Years later, Bruce Cornwell and Arthur Robinson review the field of development. By 1966, a number of computing developments including the CRT display and the drawing light pen further evolved the process of successive frame animations with film, drawing directly from the film industry. Meanwhile, Jacques Bertin would insist in 1967 that movement was an overwhelming variable. He writes that movement, quote, so dominates perception that it severely limits the attention which can be given to the meaning of the other variables. Real time is not quantitative, it is elastic. Though we are not yet able to determine all the factors of this variation. So despite the development of these factors, animated cartography proceeded with wide-ranging experimentation. In 1967, Alan Schmidt created what he called a pictorial history of the expansion of the metropolitan area of Lansing, Michigan, while at Michigan State. Here he used a new program called SimMap, which was short for the scenographic mapping method developed in 1963 by a programmer named Betty Benson and Howard Fisher at Northwestern. Waldo Tobler and his student Frank Renz at Michigan were similarly experimenting with these methods for the drawing of three-dimensional surfaces. It's in these experiments that you can see how Tobler was adjusting the intervals of exposure to these successive maps, snapshots to tune the qualities produced by these equidistant incidents. Space fixed by the outputs of the digital mapping program was made to move through film. Another student of Tobler and John Neistwin, named Hal Mollering, in 1976 experiments with these kinds of filmed instance, here to, quote, develop a feel for spatial and temporal dynamics associated with traffic crash production. With its roots firmly in the quantitative revolutions born of the University of Washington and the thematic cartographic traditions born at the University of Wisconsin, these kinds of experiments in animated maps attempted to tame and define the inethible of spatiality. Staying with the trouble created by their opposition of time and space, these experiments were both fascinating and vexing in their status as both a science and an art. Hal Mollering would go on to explore real-time animations with 3D maps, enabling the user to navigate and visualize spatial processes. However, Bertin's 1967 warning about the, quote, overwhelming qualities of movement and cartography would prove too tempting. In 1995, Alan Mckectrin would write a book called How Maps Work. And he would write in here that movement was not just one additional variable in cartography, but several. Drawing on the work of Dave DiBiossi, among others, he writes, what is probably true, however, is that on a dynamic map, things that change attract more attention than things that do not. And things that move probably attract more attention than things that change in place, end quote. The ineffability of movement in cartography would of course require more variables. Mckectrin would chart six. Display date, duration, order, rate of change, frequency, and synchronization. These variables of movement would enable a new generation of the cartographic study of cognitive processes, an understanding of which would tame the animated map. As Mark Harrowar and Sarah Fabricant argue in 2008, quote, better understanding of the human cognitive processes involved in highly interactive graphic displays is fundamental for facilitating sense-making. Better understanding will lead to greater efficiency and the complex decision-making required to solve pressing environmental problems and societal needs, end quote. Indeed, work around animated maps would become work investigating the potential for interactive maps. In this experiment published in 2011 by Carolyn Fish and her co-authors, we can see this crystallization of these methods born in the serendipitous experiments of the 1960s. The question largely unchanged since the time of Arthur Robinson and Waldo Tobler remains. How do we ensure that map readers receive the message encoded in the representation? What visual variables of movement can be better resolved to better enable these new map users? Interestingly, the subject of such animated maps recedes into the background. Maps become static surfaces for use in decision-making. Environmental crisis, social struggle, demographic shifts, these matter less in the fine-tuning of the map instrument. The trouble of the ineffable of occupying neither a science nor an art is the problem that needs to be resolved. However, what might it mean to stay with the trouble, to maintain the mysterious interaction between computer display and human visual processing systems as Danny Dorling and Stan Openshaw argue in 1992? So here I want to conclude with Jeff Dutton, a student and a researcher at the Harvard Lab in the late 1960s and 1970s. In his class project from 1969, Dutton created a piece of electronic cartographic art, testing out central place theory in a nest of three orders of light representing interacting cities. This work attempts to adjust our vision to the regularity of human life amid chaos of the 60s. Dutton draws this work forward in American graph fleeting in 1979, the first animated map hologram used that in your geography trivia. Here you can see a short film of the animation in the hologram representing a rotating three-dimensional drawing of population density in the United States. More than an artifact for precisely measuring the effectiveness of cartographic design, these animations invoke what Jacques Ranciere describes as, quote, the art of cinema, which exists through the play of gaps and improprieties. Or as Danny Dorling aptly states in 1992, quote, cartographic animation is a strange concept. Indeed, as Herrower and Sarah Fabricant write, quote, there is the very real risk that mapping technology is outpacing cartographic theory. The mystery of map animation may lie in its unresolvable tension, neither an art nor a science, of fixing space and opposing time, of equidistant instance, and the movement image of the film. Perhaps the potential of maps that move is precisely in their uncanny appropriateness for our spaces and our times. And this is where Dorling Massey might help direct such a critical cartography of animated maps. This is the problem, she writes, quote, loose ends and ongoing stories are real challenges to cartography. The static map tends toward closure, space as stasis. Perhaps maps that move might mobilize design to think the intervention of cartography differently as shifting the ways the world is experienced and represented to be forced space in all of its liveliness, surprise, and disruption. Thanks very much. So like everyone, I have to start with a gigantic thank you. I'm Leah Meisterlin. Thank you to the center. Thank you to Laura and Dare as well for bringing us all together for an exciting and definitely fun set of conversations. And Dare, thank you very much for that very sweet introduction. So thinking about the title and theme of today's event, I'm going to go out on a limb here. And I'd like to present a small portion of work currently in development. What started with thorny, but I think rather straightforward methodological research questions, have come to present far thornier and somewhat circuitous epistemological questions in asking how to measure, describe, and ultimately map certain urban relations and inequities. I have recently run up against the fundamental questions of how we know cities through mapping at all. Or more appropriately, I run up against the limits of the cartographic frame. And like Matt just mentioned, this outpacing of mapping technology, leaving cartographic theory or the development of new cartographic theory in the dust. So here we go. For context, I've been working on developing GIS-based systematic and data-driven visualizations for the spatial disparity in levels of urban access between men and women. Despite their mostly equivalent distribution across the landscape, feminist geographers have long studied systematic differences between the genders with respect to the availability or reachability of urban opportunities, as well as the myriad spatial practices that emerge out of those differences. That gender differences in urban experience have been consistently demonstrated through more than a generation's worth of research itself that they have those findings, is itself a site of spatial methodological inquiry and innovation. We perceive and glean the traces and the evidence of systemic sociospatial process. But still, these are not processes that most of our digital mapping techniques are equipped to render. This question of the relationship between representation and epistemology came up earlier today. And these are the sorts of questions that are the core of my research. Wrong one. That works. So we're in San Diego County, California. I've been testing a slew of models and methods on the screen and on the ground, some of them gross failures, in seven mid-sized US cities. But for the sake of consistency, everything I'm gonna show today represents some portion of San Diego. And I personally don't have the heart to call anybody out. So all of the examples of maps that simply do not work are mine. So personal politics aside, I'm focused now on gendered urban experience for two reasons. The first is that because, like the organizers of today's conference, I am suspicious and critical of the limits of our technology and specifically the commonly deployed logics of digital mapping. That is not to say all of it, but the ones we see the most. And also like them, I know that shying away from the exploratory, explanatory and communicative capacities of these technologies is simply not an option. It's true that new opportunities for urban representation, and this is important both graphically and politically, both graphic and political representation, have extended and evened out through a sort of growing access to geospatial data and farther reaching mapping tools on the one hand. And with a cartographic space held almost axiomatically as a scalable and neutral container for those representations on the other. Such an infinite Cartesian container constitutes a platform for incredibly widespread and often called democratic collection, digitization and visualization in which several voices might be heard and multiple perspectives offered in which wildly complex sociographic phenomena are modeled and alchemically revealed bubbling up to the surface of the map for us and in which the spatial advantage of some at the expense of others is rendered. And yet for all of its promise and for all it delivers on those promises and it does, that collected and collective leveling of the mapped proverbial playing field can also be understood sort of level and flatten the contours of diversity and difference in our cities. Countermappings persist because in the rational and sometimes hopeful claims neutrality that framework belies what we already know about urban space, it's not neutral. Mapping what happens in cities is both an investigative tool and an epistemological position. It is both implicit and complicit in the social reproduction of urbanism. Non-neutral, non-scalable, community-based, participatory and radical countermappings persists precisely because cartographic reasoning, I think but clearly I have a preference here more explicitly than other modes of knowledge production and interpretive frameworks quite literally entails drawing upon and enforcing a worldview. So yeah, for everyone who doesn't spend all day, every day in this building, this is the part where I start to sound more architect than GISE planner because with respect to ways of knowing cities for critical cartography as for architecture, what we know we must remember is inextricably tied to and dependent on how we draw. The second motivation behind the project, the methodological research, is its position within a larger project that is revisiting the question of distance, evaluating the ways in which the ease and ubiquity of digital cartography and GIS in particular has affected the representation of urban distances and our understanding thereby of urban experience for better and for worse. Distance may not be dead anymore, at least not as an empirical measure of the geometrically traversal ground between two known finite locations but she isn't quite the phoenix yet either. Distance is still struggling to rise, overshadowed by her sister's area and density, obscured by the almost ready-made traces of their earthly manifestations, the coral plef and the heat map. See, I can't call anybody out, I'm just gonna show them, okay. Whether for policymaking or market analysis, whether food deserts or healthcare or emergency response, the bigness of our data and the hunt for user-friendly human and machine-readable patterns have conspired in favor of the coral plef and the heat map, the dominance of area and density and the dominance of their mapped representations speak to the dominance of one cartographic container into which we continue to just compress and contort everything we seem to digitally know about cities and here I'm talking about both the conceptual and the practical sort of nuts and bolts of spatiotemporal aggregation. Beyond the ecological fallacies, I'm gonna dork out, described by the modifiable aerial unit problem and it's newer cousin, the uncertain geographic context problem and given the role of the map within society, when we aggregate beyond meaning, we do create patterns where there were none and yet the bigger our data grow, the more complex and interrelated our models become, the more egregious our pseudoscientific gymnastics required to fit it all in and keep that container from cracking, whether the result of intention or negligence, all of this seems to work in service to preserving the integrity of a hegemonic framework and in support of that framework's claim to epistemological efficacy. Here you go, y'all know I wouldn't leave you guys staring at those things for all of their promise and despite all of the online mapping platforms making those promises. For the record though, area and density are not to blame for their sister's struggle and the choroplast and heat map are only red herrings. The proliferation of spatial data and tools has not truly democratized mapping as practice and process. This is of course where the concerns of critical cartography intersect with the concerns about algorithmic urbanism and smart cities because the map is as prescriptive as it is descriptive and as long as we draw from one unified worldview coded for us by others we will continue to build the world in its image. Right, so I'm in the thick of it right now but this is the project and what I'm sharing is a moment of reflection, some of what I'm developing and a starting point into those processes. By way of example, I'm going to start there. There, on the coast in San Diego. If you live here, odds are you're doing pretty well and you might have a gorgeous view. Household incomes are relatively high. Most households have enough cars for the number of commuters. You probably drive to work. The mean commute length to work is significantly statistically lower than average for the region but should be noted. Commute lengths for women are almost three times that of their male counterparts which carries with, yeah, which carries with it implications for access to urban resources and opportunities, the number of usable minutes in the day for other activities and obligations as well as simple quality of life concerns. Our frameworks for interrogating distance-based access to the city are geometrically straightforward and nowadays readily computationally attainable. We measure from a given location either to another location or outward in increments of unchallenged and unproblematic units of feet, miles, or minutes. Then we might not always use these resultant areas as aggregation buckets per se. We deploy these distances as descriptors of accessibility, of neighborhoods, of catchment, and of association and similarity. And then we deploy them in the planning of transit systems, zoning regulations and incentives, real estate investments, and consumer-based market analyses. In application and in urban practice, what we tend to avoid is questioning whether movement through these areas or the time available for such movement is uniform. We find it much harder to render the constraints on distance resulting from who we are and the lives we live there. And I don't know about you, but as much as I try, I simply don't live my life like a blast radius. Distance has lived as the product of perception and empowerment, constraint and opportunity, access and intent, directionality and morphology. This distance is yet to rise from the ashes, yet to appear out of the ether of ubiquitous digital mapping, yet to reveal itself, a revelation of promised pluralism. Distance as a vector of volition, operating within and against the uneven geography of the city. This is the distance that carves territory for some while creating new margins and corralling others therein. This is the quickest driving route for two commuters. Living on the same block to their respective places of primary employment and the five minute drivable area if they were to deviate from that route as well as on the left, the non-residential buildings within those areas. Meaningful access to the city and by that also any claim to the right to the city is more than the measurable distance. It includes the constraints and necessities of daily life. Distance as lived has directionality and we all know this. What might be 10 minutes away is likely not accessible if it's in the wrong direction. Especially if I have another option that's on my way. It's a relatively simple thought but leveraging our computational and cartographic capacity to once again problematize the notion of distance implies also the opportunity to re-describe and redefine concepts of neighborhood as well as place-based community. So now in an effort to explain and discuss the differential urban experiences of individuals and communities that live together, this is the distance I am mapping to find related to but independent of location. By all accounts, that sentence should worry most of us here in this world of GPS enabled, personalized wayfinding, the map already knows its distances as a function of location and must as a tool for finding anything. Mapping to find distance as lived presupposes that the map, its frame, its scale, its perspective, its contents and its authority is unstable. Mapping to find the meaning of distance means also mapping in search of a cartographic framework that can accommodate difference without flattening or normalizing it. That demands the rigor of systematic analysis without claiming comprehensiveness that leverages the quantity of our collected geographic information without the seduction of Haraway, Donna Haraway was mentioned earlier, without the seduction of Haraway's God Trek. That is the claim, the map makers claim to see everywhere from nowhere. So here, the map, and that's one map, not four, is drawn with an appreciation for co-location noted by the red dot and with attention to cardinal relationships and geographic scale, but these are not held as the privileged properties. Rather, what is forefront and foregrounded at least in this attempt is the shared scale of urban space time and a common daily practice. Of course, mine is certainly not the first attempt. I should say that almost all time geographic inquiry stems from Torsten Hagerston's space time aquarium. I love that it's called an aquarium. And this project, and my project of course is no different. The aquarium's analytical strength is that it offers a way to deal with the seemingly, today it seems seemingly radical notions that A, it takes time to move from one point to another, we move between locations to spend time in those locations and see none of us can make more hours in the day. That's the premise of the aquarium. Similarly, my attempts owe a debt to earlier computational mapping of sort of quotidian errands as a way into, as a first step into a sort of fuzzy and differential description of the concurrent and overlapping distances that comprise, if not delineate, our perceived and lived spaces. I should also say and out loud thank you to my colleague, Mark Wasuda, who took this photograph in the Daxiatus Archives last summer as part of his research in general, so let me use it. What both of these present approaches share is a qualitative data collection methodology predicated on travel diaries and surveys. They describe actual individuals' paths as reported by those individuals. The aquarium specifically is a fantastic and elegant conceptual model, but does begin to break down when it fills up with more people's stories. It also requires individual time-stamped information, and while that is certainly achievable today, I'm not personally prepared to compromise ethical positions in order to collect and analyze it at urban level scales. So as such, I'm searching for applications of these well-thought-through frameworks within a sea of anonymized and authoritative data sets. So we're moving to Escondido, just north of the city of San Diego, less wealthy, more constrained for time. Still, everybody's driving. On average, commute lengths are longer than our previous example, and still, the mean commute times for women are significantly higher and much more notice than men, and there's much more noticeable commute variation overall. Holding the premises of Hagastrand's aquarium close, the mapping of five minutes in the previous example from a human moving through time and space must be recalibrated and rescaled when relatively compared to the distribution and accessibility of urban resources. All else equal, and here for the sake of illustration and for the sake of this model and make no mistake, it's real data, but it's just a model. All else equal, this illustration holds a handful of variables constant. I'm assuming an eight-hour work day and a standard set of at-home commitments so that we can make comparisons. You can just imagine the warping and shrinkage and rescaling if this weren't the case for one of the two commuters. So all else equal, the length and mode of one's commute has consequences for the number of minutes available for reaching those resources. In other words, having 40 additional minutes in the day translates into meaningful flexibility, more choice and more realistic opportunities for actually using what our cities offer. None of us experience the city as a blast radius from a single location. None of us experience the city as standard distances emanating from a vector. Rather, we make choices and seek opportunity as we move through space knowing each moment spent on movement limits our available options. The 24-hour day is a zero-sum game. As a result, in the case of these two commutes, while one is 10 minutes and one is 30, they appear to have different but comparable opportunities. But even holding all else equal, that comparability doesn't necessarily hold and the meaning of what I called meaningful flexibility is quickly revealed if your day goes sideways. Working longer, a sick child, or even heavy traffic, anything that takes more time does not affect our daily possibilities evenly or equally. Here, the length of the commute routes, the distribution of land uses, the organization of the highways and streets compounds the effect of lost time and one person loses more of her city than the other. So what began as methodological questions of how to map processes we already understood as spatial has revealed a structural spatial process I hadn't anticipated and one I could not have found, if confined to the uniformity of our standard conventional common today map-based reasoning. This difference is a form of marginalization, one that is not fully dependent on location, one that cannot be rendered by plotting points and creating density maps, one that we will miss if we take distance for granted. This is a map of two cities centered on one block wherein one individual is more vulnerable to that form of marginalization than the other. Thank you very much. Fantastic, so I'm gonna just pose one question to you both to get us started and then I'm really hoping that this will open up into a lively discussion with members of the audience. So again, thanks to you both. I think this is a really fantastic pairing in part because of the way that you two address the question of time in geographic representation, Leah through distance, Matthew through animation from two opposite perspectives on the map. The map is at the middle and you two are on either side kind of making a sandwich there it seems like. So Leah, in your talk you consider how time shapes perceptions of and lived experiences in urban space and the concomitant opportunities that are afforded to city dwellers through that and speculates on how considering time might force us to change the way in which the map is constructed. Matthew, in your talk you take up the question of how embedding time in the map through animation changes how the map is perceived and opens opportunities for how we might read maps differently. And I wonder if you could each speak to or consider overlaying the other's talk on your own analysis and start there. It's a funny response, I'm not a serious response but I absolutely mean it, right? Over, didn't we just do that? Didn't I just overlay my talk? Yeah, I think part of where I see some really interesting similarities is and I'm not much of a map maker. I've noticed this about Geographer first. I know, it's sad. But I do think there's something interesting in what Danny Dorling was ringing his hands about that there's no reason why the map has to remain static while the data happens across the surface. And I think much of the kinds of questions that you're engaging around distance or Lizzie Mockel's asking around radical cartography more generally are trying to find ways that the liveliness of space and the real rub difference in spatiality has, can be mapped, right? Can, that the maps can be platforms upon which has to see that resistance, to see those forms of disruption and that the space is not something, it's not a container within which difference or disruption is recognized, but that the space itself and the spatiality that is represented by those kinds of maps are sort of sutured together. Right, and they're purposeful and positioned, right? But they're, for lack of a better word, they're situated. And I think this comes back to, I think I agree with that. We're both speaking toward or about a similar set of problems that we're looking at right now. There's no shortage of mapping or, no. There's no shortage of maps being made at the moment, right? And their potency as a communicative tool but also as an epistemological framework is largely in their proliferation unquestioned and it does come down to this notion of nearness. It always will come back to Tobler in this notion of nearness and whether that we understand that temporally or through measurable distance, it's the same. They're inextricable and how closely we identify with the frame of the framework of the map, let alone the frame of the map has not, that question hasn't been sort of operationalized in popular mapping and in such a way that allows individuals or communities to really situate themselves on the map. Yeah, I think if I could add to that, I think that just in my brief interest in the history of animated mapping, the tendency was to try to find ways to fix the representation so that behavioral cartographers could measure precisely the message that was being received by the map reader. Instead of allowing time and all of its elusiveness and all of its sort of variegated expression and experience instead of allowing that to change the map itself, the tendency was to find variables that could be fixed in the creation of expressions of time through map representation. And in doing so, they've anesthesized, they've sort of taken the politics, they've removed any moment of those ineffable moments of seeing an animation that could turn in radical different ways, right? I think it is a deliz that says, breakthrough says the accountant, but that's the point a line can break through anywhere. I think that the point of potential deterritorialization through mapping is that in animated maps, it's really difficult to fix the political expression because it can be interpreted in many different ways. When people saw that map of Ferguson tweets, they often were not thinking about the subject being mapped. They were sort of in this kind of cinematic embrace of this kind of gloss in front of them. And they were not asked to sort of beg the question of the subject of the animation. From Fricardo or the Washington Post, that doesn't matter, right? It produced a number of clicks and a number of sort of attention economies that made that map incredibly successful, despite the fact that the subject being represented immediately is ephemeral. I would take that as stuff. I'm gonna agree with you and double down and say that that fixed frame, I mean, the fact that anything that isn't a web mercator at this point seems like an off map, for example, that the fixed frame and the sort of holding of the spatial question of the geography constant not only sort of meant that the substance of the image wasn't registering, but that the geography of the topic was not registering, that this was located and concentrated and dense in some areas versus others, that there's a pattern there that it's reflective of other spatial concerns and sort of local conditions. That it was mapped probably wasn't registered at this point. I have a whole bunch of things that I would wanna say to further that line of questioning, but I wanna see if there are questions to take from the audience, yeah, in the front here. But someone will bring a mic down to you. Hi, thank you both for some really fabulous presentations. Matthew, your paper got me thinking a lot about the relationship between the effectivity and affectivity, and I wanted to kind of take that framework and apply it to your project, Leah, because I'm wondering, it seems really counterintuitive, but in a sense, the lived dimension of distance or the making of effective of space seems like it also is an affective operation, that it makes both space and the mapping of space co-operative in a way that might be hostile before that has to change an affective relation both to the representation and to the space represented, or in a sense also the idea that the fixity of the frame in some way suggests that the content, we might say, of the frame has an affinity with affectivity, that there's something about the moving over the fix, and so I'm wondering kind of where, if anywhere, you see the role of affect in your project or how you think the politics of including it or not. Yeah. Who's up for that? I don't know if I can answer this, but I do think that there's, and this may be specific to the cartographic discipline that I sort of haunt. I do think that there's a great deal of interest and intense seriousness in how to produce cartographic representations that are effective, right? And largely since the 1950s, when Arthur Robinson wrote his dissertation, there was a tide shift in the move from hand-drawn cartography that emphasized the author, the make, right? Toward a form of cartography that largely removed the author from that process as seen as a way to make cartography more progressive in a post-war moment. And in that sense, cartography as a behavioral science has become incredibly effective at representing in very short periods of readability a message, but in that same moment, and often in response to that march of effective cartography, there have been a number of radical artists and cartographers through the bulk of the 20th century who've tried to change course to create disruption in cartographic work. They wouldn't necessarily describe it as affective, but I think in hindsight we might say that they are trying to resist that effectivity and produce a new form of, a new domain, a new force of mapping that cannot be universalized and is experienced multiply in a variety of different dimensions. So I guess when I think of your maps, there isn't effective and an affective domain, I think to most maps, right? And I think the affective domain is precisely the politics and the sense of an easiness with difference that the maps produce through their effective use of symbolization. Right, all right, thank you. I don't know, that's just how I would spin it. I think it's, my response probably sits somewhere in Matt's discussion of cartography as neither art nor science, certainly not both, right? And this kind of unease of cartography with either of those labels. There is a want for, I mean cartographers and the GIS especially, right? Obsessive about accuracy and geographic accuracy held to such an extent that we sometimes, we can get pseudo-scientifically or technocratically, we can lose our way with respect to questions on pluralism and difference and individually felt constraints, which I don't know that I would describe as affective so much as searching for a pursuit of equally systematic but whole descriptions of four communities and with communities, right? That sort of keeping pluralism and speciality, not just geometry foregrounded in the cartography. Yeah, I think this was really great in terms of theory and practice. So I have a question, I'm not sure if it's just Fulia or if it's for both of you, right? But your book talked a lot about web 2.0 and how mapping has really changed now that so many more people can make maps, right? And in some ways, I think GIS might be held back by Esri and the cumbersome software that has, it's kind of outdated with these new theories, with what should be new theories of mapping. So it's a long-winded way of saying like, for example, dot census maps have been really influenced by computation because you can have a dot now for every person and you can zoom in and you can see the census in a new way except that it's held back by block groups and census tracks and the GIS definition. So I'm wondering, Leah, if your maps could get freed up by new forms of computation, some of which could happen here on this campus. And I love the way you kind of struggling with that, the mapping of the individual and how you could, so I'm just wondering how could time get re-theorized onto the map with new forms of computation like the dot census? I don't know. And I think it's a question for both of you because I think the Twitter maps are such small samples and yes, you can make these beautiful visualizations but they're very, but they're small samples and you're never gonna get rid of the biases of the samples of who's holding the smart phones. Lacking the ability to predict the future, my honest answer is a lot, so much more could be done but where that would go, and I say it to students all the time, I simply can't predict what you guys will need to be able to do in five years let alone for the course of one of their careers. But, and then that's the easy answer. I suspect or I'm guessing that your question comes from the fact that I think this work that betrays a kind of tendency of mine that when confronted with the problem of aggregation, when confronted with the simplification of spatial patterns that results from the sort of common ways that maps are produced these days, the Karo-Pleth and the heat map rate, my first instinct is to refuse all aggregation, refuse all buckets and seek the individual narratives and digital does not always mean quantified, but often then quantifying sort of a set of patterns from those individuals and looking for those narratives and so yeah, exactly. So in the same way that sort of individually scaled or minimally aggregated or asymmetric was what I showed approaches to cartographic representation offer, I mean allow us more freedom and free geographic research from the sort of logical trappings of those aggregated problems. I can see computational power being first and foremost more and more immediately beneficial than forms of computation immediately followed though by complex modeling, right? Because at the end what I'm up against both representationally and sort of in terms of theorizing the cartography is the ability to now rapidly and extensively understand the implications of that marginalization process when it isn't a matter of pointing to a location and saying these are the margins, but now it's happening everywhere, it's happening on the inside and it really depends on who you are. We need that kind of scalable power, right? To make this, to test those assumptions and those associations. I think we have time for one more question. Leah, I only just now understood that you were using margin literally, like you're literally talking, right? And I guess that- Both. Both, right? Yeah, there's both purpose. Yeah, and so I guess I wanna ask because I wanna also think what you're doing in a relationship to what Simone brought up. Because, and I think there's a bias that I bring because the only maps that I see that are even close to as interesting as yours are usually dealing with risk, right? They're dealing with floods and street closures and what exactly happened after Katrina and then what we might project from some other dynamic relationship of risk or catastrophe or crisis. And yours is this kind of everyday reality that I want to also relate to the risks of being a poor person, right? And not living close to work or the risks of caring for other people and having to stop and pick them up and those people not being adults and that kind of thing. But then I also wanna think the kind of marginalization that you're putting on the table is something that could also be containing the kind of care and love that Simone brought up. So is there a way and is that a difference between the content and the model, right? Is there a way that you see the kind of model that you're setting up as something that could also stage that kind of content of care and relationships and how that marginalizes but in a way that then stages something like love or something else? Right. Your maps could do that. Hopefully. No, I mean, obviously there's a, I said personal politics aside is the motivation for this project and my own personal history aside is the motivation behind some of these research questions, right? There's a kind of, how do I do this? Yes, the answer is yes. But I think that the model is, as it's developing right now and talking about work in development, how that model is developing in the sort of representational tactics I'm testing in describing those findings and describing a set of differential processes that despite cohabitating are sort of mundane daily requirements offer up to us very different, radically different cities or different experiences of urbanism. And in such a way that should those, should that process of marginalization that comes out of responsibility, care and just life be able to sort of manifest on the image of a city like that we could see that city of care would be incredible. But on the flip side to be then able to apply it with that same sort of, to apply care in the planning of cities would be a larger goal of the work. I think on that note, we'll take a, I want to thank you both so much for this wonderful discussion. We'll take a 10 minute break and return.