regarding the reading

Compared with traditional map, the mapping Corner wrote about seems more individual, perceptual and socialized.

It shuffles my mind that mapping can not only support you to know the world but also lead you to know it. It is based on what you want to contribute to people who did not realize the world in the way that you did. That is why we have the cylinder and iconsahedron diagram of the world in the early phase of mapping, as well as the psychogeographic in terms of social psychological development. Especially in contemporary times, people set about looking back to collect the data for mapping, and found that those maps showed some invisible problems, even though the problems are just indicated by geometric figures. However, the mappers tried to use these figures to work out the social problem, like the "Game-board" method which focuses on "share", that is a key point for setting up a community. But there are still some questions that confuse me, e.g. the"Layering" method example by Koolhaas for the Pare de In Villette. I don't understand why he slice the plane. Does the geometric analysis go before the status quo analysis. In other words, I don't understand the sequence of contemporary mapping, either the idea you want to give a place (like you want to give multiple living functions or you want to reduce the crime rates in a area) and then you will try a geometric means to reconstruct a new order, or you already have a subjective patterning and then put it on the current map and segment a site?

But through the project of the Brooklyn criminal justice network, I saw mapping as dynamically increasing or reducing with time. Then mapping can be used in consequence analysis and resolution. So in my opinion, mapping is still based on what you want to achieve in a certain area.

To be continued...