Inside and out

For at least 2 weeks in a row, I've sat in front of an older couple on the train on a Saturday who have obviously not been downtown for a long time. One of them points out "oh, there's that" or "that used to be this". Things were things, places were places. They were either there or they weren't anymore. The city, to them, was defined by these landmarks which, to me, had very little significance. I may take the Bank of America building for granted but it's certainly not what I consider makes the city what it is.

Whenever I look at a tourist map of a place I know fairly well, I can't help but get slightly irked at what is pointed out as an important part of the landscape. Not that I expect them to mark what I consider important (this place has good coffee on sundays but not wednesdays or this video store has $1 VHS rentals on tuesdays) but it always seems to cheapen the experience of the place. But what can they do? It's a tourist map—most likely produced with sponsorship by certain entities that want to be highlighted somehow. The design and emphases of the map take this all into consideration.

The boundaries are interesting. Why this side and not that side? Why is this building shown but not labeled; a road not marked; a green area fictionally created? Why is this building on the non-labeled side of the street labeled but nothing else? Why is a financial building considered a tourist destination? Why do I feel like i'm being pushed and shoved into a perception of a place I know very well?

All of these questions and more went into the beginnings of this Perimeter Walk piece.