Source, bottom of the section.  You also read this tidbit in the news every so often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens#Demographics

But being an illustration, it’s constrained by two things: how much can be squeezed onto a certain size of paper, and ii) how much can be drawn for the price commissioned. I.e., these are production issues, not political. 

So, on the production issues: this piece is available in two print sizes, the largest being A1 (33.1 x 23.4 inches / 84.1cm x 59.4 cm). Into this space, Jenni has drawn – I don’t know, I didn’t count them all – perhaps 1,000 buildings (if anyone has a better estimation, please let me know). To include “the missing bits” (as pointed out here and – more bitterly – on her blog) might see that number increase by around 300-400%. It’s just not possible to fit that sort of building density into a print of this nature and size; the resulting picture would only be visible under a magnifying glass. And I doubt if Jenni could have spent the time to do it. As she says on her blog: this already took her “forever”. It’s like asking for 3-4 times more Wally’s on each page of a “Where’s Wally” book. It’s just not going to happen. 

On the politics of “maps”: I visit New York City on business sometimes (I even once had a meeting in the Bronx Zoo – best meeting venue ever), and once had to stay in Tarrytown because all the hotels in the “city” were booked up for fashion week. I get that the city is bigger than what’s on Jenni’s map. So, I think, do most people. It’s just that the piece drawn is the most dense. In those few square miles are contained an amazing number of viewable things. 

I live in Hong Kong. If you’ve ever picked up a HK Tourist Board map you’ll see a similar thing: it covers the northern side of Hong Kong Island (Central) and the southern tip of Kowloon (Tsim Sha Tsui). I’ve yet to Fanling, Sheung Shui, or Sham Shui Po on a popular English-language map of Hong Kong for tourists. And yet people still find their way to out-of-the-way places. 

An illustrator has done an amazing thing. Instead of being blinded by what she hasn’t included, be dazzled by what she has.

In the instance of Jenni’s piece I think its simply a rational way to bound the work. There’s a heck of a lot of hand drawn detail in there, if she’d drawn the entirety of the Five Burroughs it probably never would have been finished.

(Being an ignorant Brit I might expect to see political, demographic, geographic, etc. in the title of any map before imposing my expectations on it.)

Maps interact with a space in an important way – they aren’t just passive tools but active ones that define a world view. Not to include Harlem, for instance, is to ignore a culturally significant part of New York. Not to include the Chinatowns of Brooklyn or Queens (both of which are larger than the Manhattan Chinatown) reduces New York to it’s historical borders, and doesn’t reflect that New York is a living, evolving city. So many other parts of New York are left off this map that I could go on for pages. It’s fine to create a map that doesn’t include everything, and it’s fine to focus on the town center, touristy areas, and places most commonly referenced in media. Just don’t call it a map of New York.

2) These are the parts of NYC that most of the above will visit.

This kind of skewed view of New York is what happens when you offshore your mapmaking to a Brit.

This kind of skewed view of NYC is no different to how the vast majority of world see: Sydney as a bridge, the Opera House and beches; London as where the Queen lives, a bunch of impressive and old squares, and the tube; Paris as the eiffel tower, beautiful old boulevards, and Hausmann era architecture. 

People don’t usually visit world cities to explore their suburbia.

Right, so you understand that this is an illustration commissioned by a print shop, not a technical map of new york, yes?  And that it’s evident to a 3 year old that this is a snapshot of NY, not a complete map of all parts? And, it having been drawn by an English illustrator would have nothing whatsoever to do with the original terms of the commission?