Neighborhoods with more trees and green space stay cooler, while those coated with layers of asphalt swelter. Lower-income neighborhoods tend to be hottest, a city report found, and they have the least tree canopy.

The same is true in cities across the country, where poor and minority neighborhoods disproportionately suffer the consequences of rising temperatures. Research shows the temperatures in a single city, from Portland, Oregon, to Baltimore, can vary by up to 20 degrees. For a resident in a leafy suburb, a steamy summer day may feel uncomfortable. But for their friend a few neighborhoods over, it’s more than uncomfortable — it’s dangerous.

  • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Build covers with solar panels on their roofs. Provide shade and generate money in the long run. Most brick-and-mortar shoppers would be more attracted to covered parking, too.

    It blows my mind that an article about shade deserts doesn’t mention covering with solar collection systems. We all should expect anything intended to take sunlight should be a photovoltaic surface.

    • Toast@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      An increase in the number of solar cells in an area can be useful, but shade cover from trees would have a greater cooling effect on most areas. Trees both shade and provide transpiration cooling. The water evaporating from leaves cools the surrounding air as the water goes from a liquid to gas phase.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And just like solar panels, trees harvest a part of the energy in sunlight, giving additional cooling to just a shade. And trees are cheaper to set up, even if they may not provide a return on electricity.

        Ideally you would have trees on the ground and solar panels on the roofs, to further increase cooling.

    • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really hope Biden pushes something next term that allows promotes solar like the current ev push.

      Even better, ban HoAs from banning solar. Fuck that noise.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Pv is now around $30/m^2 wholesale and $60/m^2 retail.

        Not much more expensive than a sheet metal roof (far cheaper than a mature tree after all the water and tending), but a sheet metal roof doesn’t produce $100/yr worth of electricity.

        Tree good. If can’t afford tree, then pv obvious choice.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not a bad idea per se but it’s a very expensive solution. We probably won’t be able build enough panels for all of the shade we’ll need for future heat.

      Trees are usually the best and easiest solution in most areas, but many municipalities including Tampa don’t take them very seriously. They need space for roots if they’re to provide adequate shade in urban areas.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trees should be the first priority, with solar cell shade a distant second. Trees only need water and minor maintenance, are far cooler to be under than a simple shade barrier, provide a lot of benefits like wind breaking and homes for nature to live in that are better for people than artificial structures.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most brick-and-mortar shoppers

      This whole article is about residential areas, not commercial / retail ones.

      We all should expect anything intended to take sunlight should be a photovoltaic surface.

      How do you manage that in neighborhood with preexisting homes?

      • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My wording was hasty. I only envision that new structures should be expected to come with solar tiles or panels. Like, you spent half a mil on a new house, do an extra 10-20k to have a useful roof instead of a ridiculous summer passive heater.

        And yes, you’re right, trees should be #1, and the main point of the article was really the disappearance of green spaces and coverage. This brief spot is what was on my mind in my take on it:

        Quicker actions could include erecting better shade structures at bus stops or implementing rules for construction to encourage the use of materials that generate less heat in the sun. For example, some cities in the Northeast — including Philadelphia and New York — provide financial incentives for “green roofs,” in which the top of a building is covered with plants.

        So I guess I had an “old man yells at clouds” moment.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To what? Homes? Sure, but who is paying for it? Otherwise what do you suggest, erecting covered parking spots over the tops of people’s yards or driveways?

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You can get subsidies to add on. And after they’re installed, they save on energy costs, eventually paying for themselves.

            Also, yes to driveways.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    I live in a nice, heavily treed neighborhood. I always dress wrong, cause it gets so much hotter once I get into the city and open areas.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the biggest shocks moving from the midwest to Los Angeles wasn’t the palm trees, it was that there were so few shade trees.

      Sure, there were some shady neighborhoods, and there was the very shady Griffith park, but overall, almost no shade. It was nuts.

  • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand why city planners love barren plains of asphalt. Throw some greenery in there. Parking lots are so depressing.

  • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was rock climbing yesterday on a rockface getting pounded by the sun on a 90° day the entire day I felt sick, tired, and drank a shitton of water and it was not enough. People should value the shade.

    • Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gotta keep your electrolytes up too. I learned that one the hard way. You don’t need to do that in an office, you do when its 110 degrees in the shade and doing physical activities.