I read something last night as I surfed the web that historical redlining caused and/or contributes to the heat island effect. I find this assertion curious. Let me explain, but first I must define the terms.
As I understand it, redlining refers to a practice where an area or urban district was demarcated on city planning maps with a red boundary. The area inside was designated as a black or African American area and was the only area where they could rent or buy.
An urban heat island is an area where natural spaces like bare earth, grass and trees are concreted over so instead of daytime heat being reflected back or quickly released at sundown, the heat is retained and more slowly released duriung the night. Thus, the sealed-surface area is several degrees higher than the surrounding areas with their earth, grass and trees.
The article claimed that redlining meant more cement surfaces and less grass and trees thus redlined areas are more likely to be urban heat islands.
My only personal contact with a redlined neighborhood is in Arizona. There, a city laid out several neighborhoods at the same time, side by side north to south and side by side east to west. One was redlined, the others were not. Each had a large park, and a neighborhood. Each was bordered on all four sides by main roads with suburban streets criss-crossing internally. Each was built up at around the same time with detached single-family dwellings.
The wealth disparities are evident. One of the non-red neighborhoods has large lots, sprawling California style bungalows, large garages, pools. The others have smaller lots but many two-storeyed houses, some with locally quarried stone facings, some with elegant Craftsman bungalows.
The red zone has smaller, brick bungalows. No garages, no pools.
However the most striking difference is the yards. All the non-red lots have grass and shrubs, although today many may now have "desert landscaping". I suspect that one reason for this is that being Arizona, irrigation is needed and that requires a certain disposable income for installation, maintenance and of course water. In addition it is likely that 70 - 80 years ago, a non-working spouse would have helped with a garden which again reflects a wealth / income level.
More than this, it is the lack of trees which pokes one in the eye. The lots, streets and parks in the other-than-red sectors have 70 - 80 year-old trees. There are many different varieties, many non-natives, but all are tall, leafy and shady. In general the trees loom over the houses, softening the vistas and making it all green to the eye.
Other than around the park and the school, trees in the red place are few and far between. The few one can see appear to be native, straggly and may even be self-seeded. The streets, yards and houses are bare and naked to the eye, edges are sharp, all is browny and desert-y. The difference in income and wealth is evident and exposed.
But the red spaces are not sealed; they are mostly bare dirt and patchy grass. So according to the heat island effect, they should be reflecting and/or failing to retain heat in a similar fashion. I'll leave that questiion to the scientists.
My question is as to why those who lived outside the red zone planted trees, while those inside did not. There was something else going on here which is interesting, and I suspect not related to race. One more thing - the neighborhoods intended at the time for white families of similar income and wealth show the same lack of trees.
Of course this is now somewhat academic as this neighborhood is being gentrified and the original buildings replaced with modern and expensive townhouses, landscaping and ... trees which are trucked in, already fully-grown.
**Please leave your comments and queries below**
Further reading
Urban Heat Island Effect Exacerbating Summer Heatwaves
How Decades of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering
Urban Heat Management and the Legacy of Redlining
Racist Housing Practices from the 1930s Linked to Hotter Neighborhoods Today
No comments :
Post a Comment