Memory Maps Phase Two: Warping & Scale


Continuing from the first phase of analysis, which could probably do with revisiting and redevelopment, I wanted to follow up some thoughts I had in response to this initial look at the memory maps. Its proving difficult though, as every common trait or difference I find distracts me and takes me somewhere else!


In response to looking at trends in terms of the drawn boundaries from absences and ‘gaps’ in the last post, I instead moved to begin looking at commonalities amongst all of

Julias Warped Map Test.jpg

[1.] Initial Overlay Attempt

the uploaded images. The one constant within all of these maps is the inclusion of the Centenary Works courtyard, although each being massively varied. Although perhaps seeming obvious to include, the sequence in which it was added to the drawings and the processes behind it present interesting, personal distinctions between each map.


As you can see.. I have tried to overlay these drawings on top of a more detailed and accurate plan of the cluster of buildings that form this courtyard space [1.]. I wanted to attempt to learn or discover any further traits/trends from the individual warped spatial perception of the area, its physical boundaries and its relationship to other features of the wider site area as evidenced from the original observations.

This might draw from the lack of direct visual contact with the external site area, being sheltered to some degree visually from the houses along Athol Road, as well as a clear visual link to the entrance on Woodseats Road. In terms of remembering this space, our recollections of it may be detached from the rest of the site experience, although this would change in terms of severity on a personal level. Matt’s extended time there could potentially be implied from the detail and the lending of three dimensional characteristics in his drawing of this area, even without his reflections that accompany the image.


[2.] Steph’s Recollection of the Sites Footprint

The same could be suggested of Anna’s, representing this space in a similar way. Perhaps it is the kind of inclusive environment that once inside, and bordered by the hard edges of the river and the buildings – with arguably the most distinctive formal elements of all the sites structures in regards to their jagged roofs – as well as the human activity on all fronts that kept a few of us inside this micro environment, subsequently detaching it from the rest of the site so it floats and warps when recollected [figs 2&3].. if that makes sense!



[3.] Julia’s Recollection of the Sites Footprint

However, Julia and Steph’s maps seem to bring the entrance closer somewhat, to the courtyard once overlaid, suggesting a stronger connection to the rest of the site than in other drawings [figs 2&3].

Stephs Footprints.jpg

This is something I would like to investigate counteractively to the other points implied in the previous paragraph, as this may be a result of the journeys taken into the site, as well as by what means these routes were taken; Steph’s being walked and Julia’s I believe being driven. Recollecting the site whilst mentally traveling through it is an interesting idea in itself that I had not originally anticipated as an avenue of thought!


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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