The war on skyscraper shadows has been passionately waged for years. Between light and shade, their significance is intensely debated. But in the shades of gray, what else are we losing in our cities?

Cheddar Explains

How The War On Shadows Shapes Our Cities

we will all be doomed to darkness is generally the public outcry against skyscrapers. Super tall multiple story. Menaces. City shade has been the catalyst for a passionate debate on both sides, drawing protests, lawsuits, rejected proposals. The battle rages on and to be fair, people aren't wrong, nobody wants to live in the darkness vampires aside. But what else are we sacrificing in our cities in the pursuit of sunlight? More on that later. But let's jump to where the war on Shadows first began 17th century England. The right to light law dates back to 1663 under the ancient lights doctrine, basically if property owners have uninterrupted sunlight, like through a window for 20 plus years, that access to light is protected. Now, this didn't really make it over the pond though, and was officially repudiated in 1959. In the us in New York, the 38 story equitable building changed at all. It towered over its neighborhood and involved residents in a seven acre shadow. The swift outcry led to New York's first comprehensive zoning law which aimed to regulate house skyscrapers dominated the city like enforcing a step facade style to create space and light between buildings and new york is absolutely not the only city concerned about shadows, plenty of cities requires shadow analysis, which is basically what it sounds like. An assessment of proposed buildings, projects and environmental impact with respect to shading like in boston a shadow law from 1990 still restricts any new construction from casting shadows on the common or public garden over in san Francisco. The most intense battle of all takes place over the sunlight ordinance. The ordinance dictates that projects over 40 ft high with potential to cast a shadow on a park. Have to go through a shadow analysis process. Shadows are particularly relevant in terms of san Francisco's climate where it's chilly year round, standing in shade versus the radial heat makes a difference, but that's no the case in all U. S. Cities outside san Francisco, you go to phoenix Arizona and people begging for shadows. So it changes from place to place in terms of the importance of it. The shadow ordinance that governs the city was a voter initiative in 1984 meaning legislation won't change it and it all operates on the basis of proving the insignificance of a shadow, which is kind of a gray area. The relatively subjective lens of this is totally insignificant if there are folks who oppose projects, it's a really fertile ground to say, well look, you know, this is significant because the shadow on this, I will totally ruin my use and enjoyment of the park. So a lot of projects um end up getting scuttled because the cast shadow impacts including housing projects that are near parks, which you would imagine would be exactly where you'd want to have more housing. The reality is that American cities need to build in the instance of San Francisco, the city needs to build 82,000 new units from 2023 to 2030, which means building more than 10,000 units per year, which would be nearly three times the city's recent pace. So what can be done well with the right planning and architectural designs? Shadows can be me minimized and meet regulatory requirements for building approval. Take 30 van ness for instance, with its angle top that minimizes the shadow on the civic center plaza, it's not that the rising shadows of skyscrapers should swallow all the light of our public parks, which sounds dramatically bad but there is a need to find a balance. I would really, I would really welcome to discuss question about saying, look, is there a way that we can actually make more science based decisions on what is significant? Is a shadow passing through a park over the course of half an hour on a handful of days a year, Is that significant? But from the perspective of where we would ideally get to, in terms of balancing the complete legitimate me needs to sort of preserving sunshine and open spaces in san Francisco against the needs of having a place to house san Franciscans. I think that's a worthwhile conversation to have and with improving software, the impact and placement of shadows from super tallest can be more accurately analyzed and cities can make informed choices, ones that will hopefully lead to a balance of housing and light for all