
We designed shade out of our cities. We can design it back in
As temperatures continue to reach record highs—and climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves—the sun has become foe, and shade has become king. Shade can lower the ambient temperature of the air by as much as 15 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit. It can cool surfaces by as much as 45 degrees.
But where is it?
Ten thousand years ago, more than half of the land on Earth was shaded by tree canopies. Today, after millennia of deforestation, agriculture, and urbanization, that number has dropped to just 30%. The problem is particularly dire in cities: A recent map by UCLA and the nonprofit American Forests revealed staggering 'shade deserts' in almost every major urban region in the U.S. According to journalist and author Sam Bloch, this dearth of shade is by design.
In his new book, simply titled Shade, Bloch argues that the absence of shade from our lives is not an accident. 'Shade has been deliberately designed out of our environments,' he tells me on a recent phone call. 'Those decisions may have made sense in the past, but we are rapidly moving into a new world where sun protection is going to be as important as sun access.'
Shade as old as time
Humans have sought shade for as long as we have lived under the sun. 'Forget palm trees and ponds,' Bloch writes. 'In ancient Mesopotamia, cities were the real oases.' Four thousand years ago, in places where temperatures could soar up to 130 degrees, Sumerians used city walls for shade. They built deep, narrow streets and packed houses close together. Unlike modern cities, which are laid out along the cardinal directions, Sumerians also oriented their cities diagonally, which offered equal amounts of sun and shade on both sides of the street.
In his book, Bloch mentions the work of Mary Shepperson, a U.K. archaeologist who specializes in urban archaeology of the Middle East. After modeling the sun's daily and seasonal paths over Mesopotamian cities, Shepperson found that the orientation of streets, their narrowness, and small protrusions like vertical rooftop parapets and horizontal eaves likely made for pleasant, shaded cities.
The 'wisdom of shade,' as Bloch calls it, was known to the Syrians, Phoenicians, and Persians. Later, it was embraced by the Greeks and Romans, and eventually exported by the Islamic caliphate to modern-day Spain and Portugal. But that is the extent it traveled. Europeans had their own beliefs about what makes a healthy city, and they exported those beliefs to the New World. 'In temperate climates, the sun was their friend, not their enemy,' Bloch writes. 'They had little use for shade.'
How we designed shade out of our cities
If shade is as old as time, so are our preconceptions against it. Over 2,000 years ago, the Greek philosopher Onesicritus taught that shade stunted growth. As Bloch points out, our prejudice against shade even shines through in the language we use: When something is dubious, it's shady. When we feel offended, we take umbrage.
Americans, perhaps more so than others, take particular umbrage at shade. 'We think shade is yucky. It's for damp corners and fetid ponds,' Bloch writes. This goes back to the early colonizing days. When Europeans arrived in modern-day America, they brought with them a 'deep and abiding fear of forests,' which were considered pagan and unholy. In 1771, an English patrician proclaimed 'a garden in a street is not less absurd than a street in a garden.' Or as the author puts it: 'A city dweller who planted trees in their front yard was just another country bumpkin.'
Many factors further contributed to the downfall of shade, but perhaps the most significant of them is our ancestors' fear of tuberculosis. Early research from the 1900s showed that bacteria could be killed with sunlight. This understanding birthed a fixation for sunlight that translated to some of the most famous modernist buildings of the time, including Alvar and Aino Aalto's Paimio Sanatorium in Finland.
In the U.S., urban planners introduced zoning that called for 'setbacks.' They wrote 'solar codes' into urban plans. They widened roads (which also helped cars thrive) and carved out paths for sunlight to reach deep into the streets. 'This fear of tuberculosis has driven so much of our urban design,' Bloch tells me.
The approach trickled down to buildings, as architects clad office buildings and homes with large expanses of glass. Le Corbusier declared glass the foundational material of modernism. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe famously said, 'It's up to the engineers to find some way to stop the heat from coming in or going out,' about his Farnsworth House.
Glass, we know now, is notorious for trapping heat. But it has survived as a material of choice, thanks to another notorious invention: AC. Modern air-conditioning was invented in 1902 by American engineer Willis Carrier, who designed a system to control humidity at a printing plant in Brooklyn, New York. Suddenly, external shading systems like brise-soleils, awnings, sun sails—systems that have been used in European cities for centuries—were dismissed as costly add-ons that could never match the level of comfort provided by cool air being fanned through your house. Case in point: After the Truman administration renovated the White House in the 1950s—installing mechanical cooling in the process—it foolishly took down the stripy summer awnings that once kept it cool.
Air-conditioning revolutionized cooling around the world, but as Bloch writes, 'it came at a cost.' It distanced us from nature and trapped us inside climate-controlled boxes. It lowered our comfort level and our defenses. Even worse: It exacerbated the heat problem it's supposed to solve by sucking the hot air from our houses and expelling it in our cities. According to computer simulations from Paris and Phoenix, the waste heat from AC units makes the surrounding air about 2 to 3 degrees warmer. 'All this happened when we turned our backs on shade,' Bloch writes.
How we can design shade back into our cities
So, how do we learn to love shade again? The good news is that there's no need to reinvent the wheel. In his book, Bloch highlights examples from cities all over the world. In Bologna and Singapore alike, people can walk under miles of covered sidewalks that are carved out of the ground floors of buildings. Italians call them portici (porticoes). In Singapore, they're known as 'five-foot ways.'
In Seville—where seats at the bullring cost two to three times more when they're in the shade—practically all windows are shaded by roller blinds, or persianas de esparto, which are threaded grass curtains that Sevillanos drape over their balconies. Every spring, the Spanish city also installs toldos over streets and plazas. These 'sun sails' have been used for so long (over 500 years) that they have become a proud tool in the city's shade vernacular.
Naturally, every city's 'shade tool kit' will vary based on its climate policy, geographic and socioeconomic conditions, and affinity for design-led solutions. Barcelona has set up 'climate shelters,' while Dallas has been planting thousands of trees. And Los Angeles has been coating its streets and roofs with solar reflective paint.
Since the early 2000s, architects have been pushing for more passive houses. But as Bloch writes, the incentives largely benefit the future occupants, whose energy bills are lowered, not the developers, whose bottom lines remain the same whether or not a building is climate-resilient. This 'split incentive' problem has notably hampered construction and can only be solved if cities implement stronger building codes and grant developers stronger financial incentives. (Building a passive house typically costs around 10% more.)
Perhaps it would help shift our perception of shade if cities classified heat as an environmental hazard, like water or air pollution. The Clean Water Act limited what industries and farms could dump into waterways. The Clean Air Act required power plants and factories to monitor, control, and report their emissions. A similar requirement for heat might help us take more actionable steps toward heat mitigation.
'If we ever agree that heat is a threat to our freedom and happiness, then we might also decide that shade, our defense against it, is an inalienable right,' Bloch writes. (Even if studies have shown the cooling benefits of shade, Bloch says there is no single, widely accepted index to measure shade's thermal impact.)
For Bloch, the problem with shade access isn't necessarily technological but psychological. Some of the experts he interviewed for the book are even calling for a life 'after comfort'—where architecture is made more porous, and where we can learn to live with heat. Studies have found that people who are forced to deal with heat can tolerate it more than those who can escape it.
In the U.S., the ideal indoor temperature ranges between 73 and 78 degrees. In Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso—where AC is virtually nonexistent—studies say that the Burkinabe people's ideal temperature is closer to 86. Similar studies have shown that people in Marrakech, Morocco, are more likely to feel comfortable than people in Phoenix, Arizona, despite a similar climate.
Bloch knows that the cooling effect provided by shade is never going to replace the icy blast of AC. 'Even on a thermodynamic level, it's not doing the same thing,' he tells me. 'But if we can adjust our expectations as to what comfort really is, we might be able to be more tolerant of shade as a viable solution.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Thousands of cancer cases could be prevented with more breast removal surgeries
Thousands of breast cancer cases could potentially be prevented if more women were offered 'risk reducing' breast removal surgery, a study suggests. Breast removal surgery, also known as a mastectomy, is offered to treat breast cancer in some women. It can also be offered to women who are deemed to be high risk of the disease to prevent them from getting it in the first place. A study has found that if more women were given preventative mastectomies, then about 6,500 cases of breast cancer could be prevented each year. Risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM) are currently only offered to women with the BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 genes, experts said. But the new analysis suggests that some women with other genes linked to a higher risk of breast cancer – including ATM, CHEK2, RAD51C, RAD51D – who may also be at higher risk due to a number of other factors may benefit from RRM if they are assessed as having a high risk of disease. These other factors can include a family history of breast cancer, the number of children they have had, whether or not they breast fed and mammogram density. Women in the UK have an 11% chance of developing breast cancer across their lifetime. Medics can calculate a woman's risk of breast cancer using tools which combine the effect of various risk factors. This is your breast check reminder! Learn the signs and symptoms of breast — Breast Cancer Now (@BreastCancerNow) May 6, 2025 Researchers from Queen Mary University of London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) found that if health officials could identify all women aged 30 to 55 who have a 35% or higher risk of breast cancer, and they all went on to have RRM, then an estimated 6,538 breast cancer cases could be prevented in the UK each year. This is the equivalent of around 11% of the 59,000 women in the UK who are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. The academics point out that women who have one of the other genes linked to breast cancer, who may be at high risk of disease, could potentially be found by a mechanism called 'cascade testing' – where genetic tests are offered to family members of women who have been found to have these different genes linked to breast cancer. The economic evaluation study, published in the journal JAMA Oncology, concludes: 'Undergoing RRM appears cost-effective for women at 30-55 years with a lifetime BC-risk 35% (or more). 'The results could have significant clinical implications to expand access to RRM beyond BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers.' Corresponding author on the paper, Professor Ranjit Manchanda, professor of gynaecological oncology at Queen Mary and consultant gynaecological oncologist, said: 'We for the first time define the risk at which we should offer RRM. 'Our results could have significant clinical implications to expand access to mastectomy beyond those patients with known genetic susceptibility in high penetrance genes- BRCA1/ BRCA2/ PALB2 – who are traditionally offered this. 'This could potentially prevent can potentially prevent (around) 6500 breast cancer cases annually in UK women. 'We recommend that more research is carried out to evaluate the acceptability, uptake, and long-term outcomes of RRM among this group'. Dr Rosa Legood, associate professor in health economics at LSHTM, added: 'Undergoing RRM is cost-effective for women (aged) 30 to 55-years with a lifetime breast cancer risk of 35% or more. 'These results can support additional management options for personalised breast cancer risk prediction enabling more women at increased risk to access prevention.' Women deemed to be at high risk of breast cancer can also be offered regular screening and medication. Louise Grimsdell, Breast Cancer Now senior clinical nurse specialist, said: 'While this modelling provides valuable insights into the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy for women with a high risk of developing breast cancer, each individual must be offered all risk-management options that are suitable for them. 'Choosing to have risk-reducing surgery is a complex and deeply personal decision that comes with emotional and physical implications. 'So, it's vital women can consider all their options, including screening and risk-reducing medications, and are supported by their clinician to make an informed decision that's right for them. 'It's also crucial that the unacceptably long waits that far too many women who chose risk-reducing surgery are facing are urgently tackled.'


CNN
17 hours ago
- CNN
Breakthrough discovery shows that moths listen to plants — and avoid the noisy ones
FacebookTweetLink When a plant is stressed, it doesn't keep quiet about it. You won't hear the plant's cry because it's in the ultrasonic range — too high-pitched for human ears — but, for decades, scientists have been using special devices to listen in. For the first time, a team of researchers in Israel has documented that insects can hear and interpret plants' acoustic distress signals. This finding builds upon the research group's prior work recording sounds that tomato and tobacco plants make when they are dehydrated, said lead study author Rya Seltzer, an entomologist and doctoral student in the department of zoology at Tel Aviv University in Israel. 'The prevailing hypothesis is that these sounds are produced as a result of changes in the plant's water balance within the xylem vessels,' the specialized plant cells that carry water and nutrients upward from the roots to the stem and leaves, Seltzer told CNN in an email. During periods of stress from lack of water, air bubbles form, expand and collapse in xylem tissues. This sequence of events produces vibrations, generating click-like sounds every few seconds that the researchers measured in the acoustic frequency range of about 20 to 100 kilohertz. They estimated these frequencies to be audible to insects at distances up to 16 feet (around 5 meters). (Sound waves at frequencies higher than 20 kilohertz are typically beyond the range of human hearing). The scientists wanted to know if these ultrasonic sounds were being picked up by insects, so they observed the Egyptian cotton leafworm moth (Spodoptera littoralis), which lays its eggs on plant leaves. The study team found these moths tended to avoid noisy, stressed tomato plants. Instead, the insects favored tomato plants that were quieter and therefore in better condition, with leaves that would provide a juicier meal for newly hatched larvae, according to a recent study published in the journal eLife. '(The research) reveals a surprising new way that animals can sense and respond to cues from the environment — in this case, insects picking up sounds from stressed plants,' Dr. Yali V. Zhang, an adjunct associate professor of physiology at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine, said in an email. Zhang, who studies chemical communication between insects and plants at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, was not involved in the study. However, just because the moths hear and react to sounds from dehydrated plants doesn't mean that the plants and moths are holding a conversation, Seltzer said. 'It's important to clarify that we observed an interaction — not communication,' she added. 'It's crucial to understand that plants likely produce these sounds passively and are not actively trying to communicate with insects.' When the scientists presented female moths with a choice between a dried-out tomato plant and a fresh one, the moths flocked to the fresh plant to lay their eggs. But the team wanted to understand whether the sounds from the dehydrated plant were a factor in the moths' selection. The researchers built an arena consisting of two boxes. In one box, they played recordings of plants' distress sounds, while the other box was silent. In the experiment, moths gravitated to the noisy box, and scientists theorize that it's because the sounds suggested that they would find a living plant there. This preference vanished when the scientists deafened the moths, leading to the conclusion that moths were listening to the plants before they made their choices, the study authors wrote. In another experiment, the researchers again offered the female moths a selection of two tomato plants. This time, both plants were hydrated, but one was near a speaker playing ultrasonic stress sounds. The result: More of the moths picked the quieter plant. A third experiment tested whether the egg-laying females were influenced by other acoustic cues, such as those of male moths, who produce ultrasonic courtship clicks. It found that when male moths' calls were broadcast from one side of the arena, females 'showed no significant preference' as to where they lay their eggs, according to the study. Together, these experiments told the researchers that the moths were listening to and recognizing sounds made by plants — and that they were using that acoustic information to make decisions about those plants for their reproduction, Seltzer said. Insects have been capable of detecting ultrasonic sounds since at least the Eocene epoch (55.8 million to 33.9 million years ago). However, the researchers were surprised to see that the moths recognized the plants' ultrasonic signs of distress, Seltzer said. Even though female moths in the experiments had never laid eggs before — and therefore had no prior experience deciphering acoustic cues from plants — they not only recognized plant sounds, but preferred quieter plants for their first time egg-laying. 'It's a really cool and surprising discovery!' Zhang said. 'We've known for a long time that plants give off smells when they're in trouble, like when they're being eaten by bugs or are thirsty. These smells help attract helpful insects or scare away pests,' he said. 'What's new here is that sound may give extra information — like a warning signal — especially when there's no smell or the smell is hard to detect. ' Plant acoustics is an area of growing interest for scientists, and preliminary work suggests that sound-making is widespread, Seltzer said. Future research could investigate the use of acoustic monitoring to understand how stress affects plant health and could identify potential applications for agricultural pest control. 'I believe this is just the beginning of discoveries in this field,' Seltzer said. 'There are countless organisms that can hear in these frequencies, and potentially many more plant sounds we haven't discovered yet,' she added. 'This is definitely just the tip of the iceberg.' Mindy Weisberger is a science writer and media producer whose work has appeared in Live Science, Scientific American and How It Works magazine. She is the author of 'Rise of the Zombie Bugs: The Surprising Science of Parasitic Mind Control' (Hopkins Press). Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
New study reaches landmark conclusion about impact of wind turbines on human health: 'Not a cause-and-effect relationship'
New study reaches landmark conclusion about impact of wind turbines on human health: 'Not a cause-and-effect relationship' A new peer-reviewed study from researchers at Poland's Adam Mickiewicz University has found no evidence that wind turbine noise causes mental harm, putting to rest a persistent and unsubstantiated claim that clean energy projects may be harming our health. Medical Xpress reported that the study measured brainwave activity in 45 university students exposed to different sounds — including traffic, wind turbines, and silence — without revealing the sources. Participants described the turbine noise as white noise and did not report it as any more stressful than city traffic. The researchers also found no measurable differences in brain activity, nor any signs of psychological harm, across the various sound environments. "Although these results cannot be generalized, they support the concept that the interlinkage between exposure to wind turbine noise and human cognitive functioning is not a cause-and-effect relationship," the authors wrote in the study, published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. While they acknowledged that their research is not definitive on long-term exposure, they concluded that "wind turbine syndrome" — the conspiracy theory suggesting these sounds cause cancer or mental illness — has no scientific basis. This is reassuring news for consumers and communities. Wind turbines are among the most cost-effective sources of clean energy and can offer great economic and health benefits. They reduce dependence on dirty energy sources like oil and gas, helping to curb rising health risks tied to air pollution. They can also help stabilize public energy grids and lower utility costs for homeowners. Plus, by reducing the amount of heat-trapping air pollution the energy industry generates, we're working toward a safer, cleaner future for all of us. Studies like this help cut through misinformation that could dampen public reception to clean power sources. "This interpretation is compatible with previous findings showing social contexts, such as socialization and misinformation, as a moderator of the interlinkage between wind turbine noise and human functioning," the study authors wrote. A discussion on Reddit shared similar viewpoints on the topic. "Colleague of mine [used] to do community engagement," one commenter said. "Received lots of calls about how the wind turbines were making people in the area sick. She had to tell them that the newly built turbines hadn't actually been switched on yet. Not saying some people weren't having a reaction though as the mind can be a powerful tool (look up the Nocebo effect)." Do you worry about air pollution in your town? All the time Often Only sometimes Never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword