A People's History of Shade
April 29, 2019 12:14 PM   Subscribe

Shade is often understood as a luxury amenity, lending calm to courtyards and tree-lined boulevards, cooling and obscuring jewel boxes and glass cubes. But as deadly, hundred-degree heatwaves become commonplace, we have to learn to see shade as a civic resource that is shared by all.
Sam Bloch on the legal and social forces that keep Los Angeles' sidewalks treeless, bright, and hot.
"...A new design for maligned Pershing Square — its sixth — was unveiled in 2016. Like prior efforts, the design competition was sponsored by nearby property owners; this group calls itself Pershing Square Renew. The winning proposal, by Agence Ter, again centers on a great lawn, with plenty of space for public events. One edge, opposite the Biltmore hotel, is dominated by a massive block-length arbor that the designers call a shade pergola. The thin slats of its canopy will be hoisted 30 feet in the air by columns which split like a tree’s branches as they extend upward. The whole structure is to be subsumed by climbing vegetation, echoing the more natural tree grove planned for the other side of the park. In renderings, the pergola seems to recede into the foliage, as crowds mingle in diffuse, dappled light at restaurants and the farmer’s market, or on the viewing deck.

"Conspicuously, there are no benches. I asked Agence Ter landscape designer Lauren Hamer about that. Shade creates shelter, she said. 'And Los Angeles obviously has a very conflicted position towards creating shelter in the public realm,' which is reflected in attitudes toward homelessness. 'Public spaces need to be open, so that people can move across them, as opposed to gathering there.' She cited a failed 1986 proposal by James Wines, which would have transformed the park into a miniature of the city itself — a 'magic carpet' of different micro-climates, each module locked in a grid. Although Wines won an open design competition, his park was never funded or built. Hamer said she thought that was because it would be too inviting: 'a place for people to hang out.'"
posted by Iridic (42 comments total) 51 users marked this as a favorite
 
The reverse of this, in places where it rains a lot, is why aren't there more awnings to walk under? In downtown Portland, there aren't many places to get out of the rain that occurs all winter long. When I've asked people there about it, they say businesses are reluctant to attract homeless people to their properties.

In a few more years of climate change, I suppose they will be just like Los Angeles though.
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:21 PM on April 29, 2019 [2 favorites]


Things could be so simple and lovely.
posted by bleep at 1:35 PM on April 29, 2019 [16 favorites]


good article; makes great points regarding wealth disparity and community resources being withheld from low income areas via a combination of bad policy and malice.

the part about homelessness, however, is more complicated. i lived practically on top of pershing square from 2011 to 2016 and still work a few blocks away. i think it is legitimate for the city to think about how to avoid having the renovated pershing square, given how close it is to skid row, not become a new encampment, even if that means designing it for passing through rather than hanging out. the sidewalk encampments in that area are extremely dangerous for both the homeless and nearby residents because it is a magnet for criminals who prey on them. that understanding is partly the basis for the housing first movement.
for those who havent seen the encampments in and near skid row in LA, it is absolute fucking mayhem.

but again, that is just a small part of this interesting article.
posted by wibari at 1:48 PM on April 29, 2019 [4 favorites]


Thank you for posting this. West coast cities like LA and Seattle always strike me as alien and uncomfortably open, and now I know it's because of the lack of shade trees in those cities (at least in the parts that I visited.) Austin downtown suffers from that too.

Boston/New York/Shanghai, when I call up images of streets in those cities, there are always lines of trees arching over them.

"In the shade, overheated bodies return to equilibrium. Blood circulation improves. People think clearly. They see better. In a physiological sense, they are themselves again." That's so true. I wish parasols were more of a thing in the US so that I wouldn't be so self-conscious carrying one.
posted by of strange foe at 1:50 PM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]


i think it is legitimate for the city to think about how to avoid having the renovated pershing square, given how close it is to skid row, not become a new encampment, even if that means designing it for passing through rather than hanging out.

I think the most legitimate way to have fewer homeless people in Pershing Square is to have fewer homeless people in Southern California, but then, I'm not an urban planner.
posted by Etrigan at 1:55 PM on April 29, 2019 [54 favorites]


I wish parasols were more of a thing in the US so that I wouldn't be so self-conscious carrying one.

You kind of just have to not give a fuck (easier said than done I realize). And if it means you're cooler and less likely to get a sun-burn, then I say do you and be confident about it. Besides, maybe your having a parasol is what helps others feel more confident in owning/using one as well.
posted by Fizz at 2:33 PM on April 29, 2019 [19 favorites]


very conflicted position towards creating shelter in the public realm

This phrase did not teach me anything new about Los Angeles (or basically anywhere else in America) when it comes to attitudes about the homeless but there's something about the phrasing that is just triggering all my rage.

On a lighter note, given that I'm basically a vampire when it comes to sunlight but do like to be outside, I also wish I could not give enough fucks to go full parasol; maybe this will be my year (if the sun ever returns to Chicago for more than 4 hours a week).
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:49 PM on April 29, 2019 [6 favorites]


It seems like 90% of urban architecture is dedicated to "how can we make this place look enticing while actually being so hideously uncomfortable that people won't hang out there?"
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:39 PM on April 29, 2019 [29 favorites]


We're about to lose a lot of our sidewalk shade trees in San Francisco. The city has a new policy of removing all its street ficus trees. It's not wanton vandalism, the trees really are a problem. But they also provide the backbone canopy in some of our nicer streets. Particularly in the Mission like Folsom, or 24th east of Mission Blvd. I've got a massive ficus right in front of my house and I am not looking forward to the temperature in my house going up 5 degrees when they remove it.

They're promising to replant new trees but only "as resources allow". Also for years now SF's idea of planting new street trees is imported palms. Which as John King once remarked, have "all the charm of a telephone pole". Stupidest trees possible, particularly for SF.
posted by Nelson at 4:50 PM on April 29, 2019 [11 favorites]


I know it's basically the point of the article, but god if there isn't a huge discussion to be had on the war of enjoyment of public space, lest someone ~undesirable~ use it. Even just straight up midtown parks have been completely ruined by this. It's something equivalent to the opioid crisis with addicts vs chronic pain patients, because they're willing to burn down everyone else and especially the elderly, disabled, etc to achieve their "image" goals.

I often compare one of my favorite parks in town(Volunteer, in Seattle for the curious) because it's the perfect achievable urban park to me. It's simultaneously open and inviting, while feeling like you're lost in the wilderness if you'd like to be. The reason i'm bringing it up is the same architects designed another park(Cal Anderson) which was "modernized" something like 15 years ago.

It took it from feeling somewhat lush like what i'm describing, to a carefully pruned back, sterile, harshly lit thing with essentially no shade and absolutely no privacy. It's pretty much a big, public, front lawn. There's benches, but they have huge dividers so you can't lay down. They're also confined to two rows in the center of the park. The only trees to get shade under have large dirt/bark areas so that said shade isn't enticing to sit in. The entire thing is just kind of depressing.

I remember watching this theme reverberate throughout the city starting around maybe 2000 or so. Beautiful parks, often from the early 1900s revamped for "safety" and "cleanliness" into wide open baseball fields of nothingness with maybe a fountain, and some scrawny pruned back tall trees and sheer bushes. This accompanied every bus stop bench going away, to be replaced at a few stops, but mostly with single uncomfortable podiums, wall leaning-perches, and the sides or any real shelter from anything but straight down rain cut back or removed. Benches went away everywhere, foliage is kept to a minimum in so many places.

How much is really worth giving up to "discourage" homeless people? A lot here seem thirsty for more and worse measures, and it just depresses me to no end.
posted by emptythought at 4:54 PM on April 29, 2019 [14 favorites]


I remember watching this theme reverberate throughout the city starting around maybe 2000 or so. Beautiful parks, often from the early 1900s revamped for "safety" and "cleanliness" into wide open baseball fields of nothingness with maybe a fountain, and some scrawny pruned back tall trees and sheer bushes.

I think this is what inspired Counterbalance Park, which bills itself as an 'urban oasis' and is in fact a concrete wasteland with a few sad saplings, that somehow manages to look absolutely baking even in the middle of winter. It successfully does not contain unhoused people, mostly by virtue of not being used by anybody. I walk past it pretty regularly, and it's unspeakably depressing.

As ever, the solution is to house the unhoused, but that is a difficult and expensive problem, so it's far easier to push community members farther to the margins, and make sure that public spaces don't get used by anyone. Saves on upkeep too! /flames on the side of my face
posted by kalimac at 5:40 PM on April 29, 2019 [8 favorites]


I wish parasols were more of a thing in the US so that I wouldn't be so self-conscious carrying one.

You kind of just have to not give a fuck (easier said than done I realize). And if it means you're cooler and less likely to get a sun-burn, then I say do you and be confident about it. Besides, maybe your having a parasol is what helps others feel more confident in owning/using one as well.


Here in my subdivision in sunny South Florida there are people who use umbrellas in full sunlight while they walk their dogs. Mostly elderly ladies who have probably run out of fucks to give, but I haven't heard anybody in my neighborhood sneer at them - instead we see them and say, "What a great idea!" (The only reason I don't do it is that I don't have a dog so I have no reason to walk outside.)
posted by Daily Alice at 6:14 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]


I don't have a dog so I have no reason to walk outside.

Ouch. This is America. I suppose you have no parks or markets or bakeries or coffee shops or anything at all within a mile or so walk, much like lots of the country.

This, to me, is right on point: why have shade if there’s nowhere to walk or enjoy being outside?
posted by SaltySalticid at 6:31 PM on April 29, 2019 [7 favorites]


I am just about one mile away (on completely unshaded sidewalks) from a shopping center that has a couple of sit-down restaurants, a couple of higher-end fast food places (Chipotle and Panda Express), a drug store, a liquor store, a fancy grocery store (Sprouts) and many sources for consumer products. At my pace, a mile is about 20 minutes, and I am a fragile flower who would rather drive for 2 minutes than walk for 20, especially when it's 90 degrees, extremely humid, and a thunderstorm might strike at any minute without warning. And when the errand might result in heavy things to carry home. I could see walking to one of the restaurants if I wanted to really tie one on, but otherwise there's just no advantage.
posted by Daily Alice at 6:51 PM on April 29, 2019


It seems like 90% of urban architecture is dedicated to "how can we make this place look enticing while actually being so hideously uncomfortable that people won't hang out there?"

The fast-food restaurant theory of public space design.
posted by schoolgirl report at 6:54 PM on April 29, 2019 [10 favorites]


How much is really worth giving up to "discourage" homeless people? A lot here seem thirsty for more and worse measures, and it just depresses me to no end.

I think the most legitimate way to have fewer homeless people in Pershing Square is to have fewer homeless people in Southern California


not to turn this into a homelessness derail, but my point wasnt that it's great to discourage poor people from using parks, but that in some places the problem is of apocalyptic proportions and is a health hazard for everyone. i wasnt referring to "undesirable" people at all. the area around pershing and especially a few blocks east of it is basically a giant open air mental hospital. more public parks there would make the problem worse, not better.
posted by wibari at 7:06 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]


I wish parasols were more of a thing in the US so that I wouldn't be so self-conscious carrying one.

Around here you see a fair number of older Asian ladies carrying them; they DGAF, so why should you?
posted by praemunire at 7:10 PM on April 29, 2019 [3 favorites]


the area around pershing and especially a few blocks east of it is basically a giant open air mental hospital. more public parks there would make the problem worse, not better.

You know the park doesn't actually call them into existence, right? They're there whether you can see them or not.
posted by praemunire at 7:11 PM on April 29, 2019 [21 favorites]


I haven't finished the essay, although the half I've read so far is very interesting. It certainly makes a convincing case that in an environment like southern California, shade is part of the indispensable infrastructure of any hospitable public space. There is an endless profusion of praise for Los Angeles weather, but the sun is brutal here even when it's cool in the shade. It's an ideal climate for lounging or driving with the windows down. I would not say it's nearly as nice for anyone who has to be out in the open for long periods.

As for the lack of trees lining many of those vast concrete thoroughfares lined with low-rise storefronts where everything reflects unbearable brightness - that is one of the reasons why I feel like I'm not following the instructions when I walk in this city.
posted by a certain Sysoi Pafnut'evich at 7:52 PM on April 29, 2019 [3 favorites]


You know the park doesn't actually call them into existence, right? They're there whether you can see them or not.

yes i am quite aware of that. the point of the article was that there are insufficient public resources, like shade trees, for underserved communities, including the homeless. my point was that in some areas, the discussion on public resources intersects with the far more complex issue of chronic homelessness in a neighborhood i actually lived in for years and still work in. your snarky comment has no bearing on any of that, thanks.
posted by wibari at 10:18 PM on April 29, 2019 [3 favorites]


Yeah I love this city (Los Angeles) as long as it is cloudy and cool, as it has been this winter, but I hate it so much when the light is direct and there is no shade. At least I know I'm just one member of the whole population suffering from a legitimate thing rather than a single cranky pale ex midwesterner that I feel like on most summer days.
posted by davejay at 10:42 PM on April 29, 2019 [1 favorite]


more public parks there would make the problem worse, not better.

No, it would make the problem more visible.
posted by Etrigan at 3:38 AM on April 30, 2019 [10 favorites]


People need to be realistic. Encouraging Pershing Square to be a homeless encampment is fine and dandy, but it doesn't solve homelessness, and it discourages use by non homeless. Win-win situation? Yeah, no. Making the problem more visible doesn't help, either. Seriously, homeless people are quite visible in DT L.A. already. I mean, have you ever been to been to DT L.A.?

Snark away, folks, but nobody here has a solution to the homeless problem. Not even close. Nor do any urban planners, for doggsakes. And everybody knows full well that Pershing Square will be a place to avoid if it's full of homeless. If you're unwilling to accept that, you not only have no solutions, you're deluding yourselves.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:28 AM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]


nobody here has a solution to the homeless problem.

Yes we do, but it would involve giving things to them for free, and heaven forbid we do that.
posted by Mogur at 5:47 AM on April 30, 2019 [16 favorites]


i think it is legitimate for the city to think about how to avoid having the renovated pershing square, given how close it is to skid row, not become a new encampment, even if that means designing it for passing through rather than hanging out.

"But if we have places to sit, homeless people will come there." Of course. So what? They're around anyway. What you need is so much space for sitting that there's plenty of room for the homeless people and the lunch-eaters and the conversationalists and the people-watchers.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:02 AM on April 30, 2019 [9 favorites]


Making the problem more visible doesn't help, either.

No one is saying that it does. But making it invisible -- a process that is laid out in excruciating detail in Bloch's article -- doesn't seem to be helping either, so maybe we should stop taking active, concrete (by several definitions of the word) steps to do it. Maybe "the" problem of how (or whether) to keep Pershing Square from becoming a homeless encampment isn't actually a problem with Pershing Square, and therefore remaking Pershing Square shouldn't be a higher priority -- for money, time, or effort -- than the existence of any homeless encampment.
posted by Etrigan at 6:23 AM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]


> We're about to lose a lot of our sidewalk shade trees in San Francisco. The city has a new policy of removing all its street ficus trees. It's not wanton vandalism, the trees really are a problem. But they also provide the backbone canopy in some of our nicer streets. Particularly in the Mission like Folsom, or 24th east of Mission Blvd. I've got a massive ficus right in front of my house and I am not looking forward to the temperature in my house going up 5 degrees when they remove it. They're promising to replant new trees but only "as resources allow". Also for years now SF's idea of planting new street trees is imported palms. Which as John King once remarked, have "all the charm of a telephone pole". Stupidest trees possible, particularly for SF.

Huh, how strange. I would think that San Francisco would have a more reasonable policy. Here in Philly, the city publishes a list of approved street tree species, categorized by size, with subsets of those suitable for narrow streets and beneath powerlines. Any homeowner can request a street tree and the city will provide and install it for free--though you'll wait at least a year for your number to come up. Alternately, you can apply for a permit and hire a certified arborist to do it at your own expense.
posted by desuetude at 7:51 AM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]


my point was that in some areas, the discussion on public resources intersects with the far more complex issue of chronic homelessness in a neighborhood i actually lived in for years and still work in. your snarky comment has no bearing on any of that, thanks.

Yes, it intersects in that you're concerned that if there are more usable public resources, chronically homeless people will be visibly using them. Calling it a "complex issue" doesn't change that one bit. You don't have to have the solution to all problems of homelessness to recognize that the mindset that resents its visible presence is both misguided and ugly.
posted by praemunire at 8:13 AM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]


Ages ago, I ran an architectural design course where the students had to engage with the local homeless, in collaboration with the authorities and non-profits involved. It's likely the best class I ever had. Anyway, at the end, a friend of mine from an other country passed by and I invited him to join the final exam. He never got how the students were dedicated to helping the homeless, rather than excluding them. It was interesting to hear his comments, but they didn't influence the grades in a country where the government policy is to help homeless people (who are not immigrants, mind you, but that's a whole other conversation).

I really like the article, but I think the most important issue here is climate. Both in terms of the direct effect: trees are really good for the local climate, and for the wider effect: Daily Alice comments that they don't want to walk a mile in the sun, which is fair, but their comment also shows how walkable cities need shade and moisture, and we all need walkable cities to limit car use and CO2 emissions. Trees make our cities more livable, regardless of which climate zone we are in. I'm in a temperate climate zone where shade is not a huge issue. But trees are.
posted by mumimor at 8:26 AM on April 30, 2019 [3 favorites]


I lament that public spaces are increasingly being designed to be hostile to people.

On the other hand I believe that a design for Pershing Square that doesn't actively discourage homeless encampments will result in Pershing Square becoming a homeless encampment that is effectively not a public space. People who are arguing that homelessness must be made more visible need to ask themselves who pays for that increased visibility. What's you're really saying is that the parks that can be used by poor and working class people should be rendered unusable in the name of demonstrating the problem of homelessness.
posted by rdr at 8:43 AM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]


People who are arguing that homelessness must be made more visible...

...are not present in this thread.

My use of the word was to counter the argument that having more public space makes the homeless problem worse. Everyone else's use of it since then has been to argue the point that designing public space so it is hostile to homeless people decreases their visibility and makes it more difficult for them simply to live. Or to argue that there are too many visible homeless people, and that designing public space to be hostile to them so as to reduce their visibility -- and no other aspect of homelessness or the problems that lead to it -- is the preferable solution.
posted by Etrigan at 8:53 AM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]


Mod note: Folks it would be great if we could avoid caricaturing other people's comments. Maybe rather than making it all about how you think somebody else is wrong, let's steer toward just saying whatever you think is a positive solution/approach.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:47 AM on April 30, 2019


On the other hand I believe that a design for Pershing Square that doesn't actively discourage homeless encampments will result in Pershing Square becoming a homeless encampment that is effectively not a public space.

Either way, a nice, welcoming park is being taken from the public. The difference is a homeless person living there is taking it because they need a place to sleep. With a full belly and a roof over my head, well... I'd be kind of a jerk to deny someone a basic need because of a want. On the other hand, making the space hostile to homeless, and therefore everybody, that isn't even using the space, it is purposefully crippling it. Who benefits? It's just... taking and no one gets it.
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:59 AM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]


There is a salient fact here that has not been mentioned. Los Angeles is located in a desert. Trees don't grow in the desert because there is not enough water. Trees and lawns are great in Ohio but they don't work in Southern California desert. In my city of Long Beach, the city has had to cut down thousands of trees that were dead or dying because of the long drought. Shade is great and I'm all for it but this ain't Kansas.
posted by charlesminus at 10:32 AM on April 30, 2019


Trees and lawns are great in Ohio but they don't work in Southern California desert. In my city of Long Beach, the city has had to cut down thousands of trees that were dead or dying because of the long drought. Shade is great and I'm all for it but this ain't Kansas.

I'm in the middle of writing an article about re-greening the desert. We've all been brought up to think the desert is a given condition that can't be changed, but projects all over the world show that is not true. What are now deserts were often forests, and we can help them grow back. John Liu's work is maybe the best known, so that's what I'm posting, but I'm doing it at home, and it works just fine. And I look at an increasing number of cases, both as inspiration for my own farm (which was once a desert) and for the article, which brings together experiences from all over the world.
posted by mumimor at 10:40 AM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]


I would think that San Francisco would have a more reasonable policy.

Haha ha that's adorable. Despite our reputation for progressive government, in practice we have a lot of terrible policy.

In this case though our tree policy is in flux. Until a few years ago street trees were the property owner's responsibility, with some limits on what could be planted and removed. In 2016 we passed a law with the city taking over responsibility for trees and sidewalks. Which I think was mostly a good idea, but it means the city makes the decisions now. I can sort of accept they may have to remove a bunch of old problematic trees. I'm worried they won't replace them though, and even if they do the best job possible it'll be 20 years before we're back to anything like we are today.

Could be worse; see The Canal du Midi losing 42,000 trees (and counting).
posted by Nelson at 11:08 AM on April 30, 2019 [1 favorite]


Trees and lawns are great in Ohio but they don't work in Southern California desert.

This seems to me, someone in Canada who has no specific knowledge of the area or issue, more a question of will than anything else. The article mentions, and shows pictures of, nice treed areas in LA so trees are possible. Even here in Toronto street trees need additional care and watering because they only have a small patch of soil to grown in so I understand that it isn't as simple as just planting the trees, you need to take care of them, but the benefits trees provide to reducing urban warming, improving air quality, reducing storm sewer overflows, and just general quality of life, ought to be enough to offset the added costs of watering and maintenance.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:12 AM on April 30, 2019 [4 favorites]


There's benches, but they have huge dividers so you can't lay down.

Does anybody remember a few years back, when there were angle grinder vigilantes taking boots (aka wheel clamps) off cars? We need that but for the stupid dividers on these benches.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:22 AM on April 30, 2019 [2 favorites]


There is a salient fact here that has not been mentioned. Los Angeles is located in a desert. Trees don't grow in the desert

The LA region has a Mediterranean climate. Most of the pre-settlement vegetation was chaparral and sage scrub, but the canyons and watercourses bristled with oaks, sycamores, bays, black walnuts, willows, and cottonwoods. With careful water management, trees can absolutely thrive there.
posted by Iridic at 12:13 PM on April 30, 2019 [5 favorites]


chaparral and sage scrub, but the canyons and watercourses bristled with oaks, sycamores, bays, black walnuts, willows, and cottonwoods.

Canyons and watercourses in the populated parts of LA have been turned into concrete, which is a totally separate issue. Sure, trees could survive there, but the rest of the city gets like 15 inches of rain a year, which is just about 1 inch of rain per month. This could not support many trees without serious irrigation construction.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:48 AM on May 1, 2019


I live in a part of Southern California with rainfall similar to LA, and you guys, it's dry but it's not the Sahara, there are plenty of trees that grow all on their own on undeveloped land. Anyway, one good approach to keeping trees happy without adding irrigation is to position them along streets to catch stormwater before it drains into the concrete culverts we call rivers around here. (Though that's also changing, LA has had some real success turning the LA River back into a waterway worthy of the name with forested parkland.)
posted by contraption at 8:12 AM on May 1, 2019 [3 favorites]


Many thanks for posting this. It was well written, and I was diverted by many of the footnotes.

Here in Philly ... alternately, you can apply for a permit and hire a certified arborist to do it at your own expense.

There's also nonprofits here that will give you a tree and plant it for you too, if you promise to take care of it, such as UCGreen in West Philly.

posted by carter at 11:58 AM on May 7, 2019


« Older The Consultant Crisis   |   The Bob Emergency Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments