A Simplified Map of London Losers


The author of this map projects London according to his perception. It is a simplified map of two-class bracket in the society according to income. Very rich people are few and pull together in the middle near the river while those who are not very rich and is tagged as ‘losers’ where elsewhere. ’Losers’ occupy significantly greater area compared to the very rich.

What makes this map interesting is how the author projects London in his own perception and came up with a clever way to show social divide within the city. This was a simple but direct to the point representation of a person’s idea. People who can see this map can reflect and relate on their social classification, especially those locals from London itself. This may serve as an inspiration for people from other places to make their own simplified social perception of their own city.

People from London commented on the site and said that this is fairly accurate representation of London. London, according to a comment, has other wealthy areas but what distinguishes these areas, which the author labelled as very rich, is that these areas have always been wealthy. The other wealthy areas were just gentrified. Some disagree with the author about his perception of losers and gave some opinions about their own concept of rich and losers. The map achieved its objective to show the great social divide in the city and showed the locals a simpler way of visualizing their city.

The map is plain and very simple. It has no legends, no information about the producer of the map but it has a north arrow. Scale, in this map, is not needed because it is a map of how the author views the social division of London. The map may be improved if a short description is provided for the people who are not from London to further understand the map.

3 comments on “A Simplified Map of London Losers

  1. I’m feeling this one is a bit too bare as a map for the public’s general consumption, and i think the writer did a good job in underlining the reasons why this is representative of the author’s perspective, including other ideas on how this generalization came about, and the counterarguments against the delineations used. It would have been interesting to see a 2nd map here showing how the author perceives her own place as a comparison with the same simplified imagery and perhaps make a comparison on how world views differed, or perhaps a second re-imagination of the map above, but including the dissenter’s point of views?

    As a last note, one word. Simple. Actually I’d say the choice of map here is a bit too simple, but i feel aside from the novelty of a bare-bones map, this is a poor choice to use in portraying maps and map-making as a topic of interest, something the author of the blog already commented on- without a trained eye, this is just a child’s doodle. Something more eye-catching, something more flashy perhaps? I take interest on the other meanings behind maps, how they are portrayed and the underlying social events that led to the creation of the maps so I’d understand this one from a geographer’s perspective. What about those outside of our field?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s