Content uploaded by Ladd Keith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ladd Keith on Apr 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ten Principles for
Building Resilience
About the Urban Land Institute
The Urban Land Institute is a global, member-driven organiza-
tion comprising more than 40,000 real estate and urban devel-
opment professionals dedicated to advancing the Institute’s
mission of providing leadership in the responsible use of land
and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide.
ULI’s interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects of
the industry, including developers, property owners, investors,
architects, urban planners, public officials, real estate brokers,
appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers, and academics.
Established in 1936, the Institute has a presence in the Ameri-
cas, Europe, and Asia Pacific regions, with members in 76
countries.
The extraordinary impact that ULI makes on land use decision
making is based on its members sharing expertise on a variety
of factors affecting the built environment, including urbanization,
demographic and population changes, new economic drivers,
technology advancements, and environmental concerns.
More information is available at uli.org. Follow ULI on Twitter,
Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.
Cover photos:
Clockwise from top left:
Solar panels on the roof of Paseo Verde, Philadelphia (Steve Lipofsky)
Buffalo Bayou Park, Houston (Jonnu Singleton, SWA Group)
Atlantic Wharf’s green roof, Boston (Ed Wonsek)
CicLAvia kickoff in the Pacoima neighborhood, Los Angeles
(ULI Los Angeles).
Urban Resilience Program. Ten Principles for Building Resilience.
Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2018.
ISBN: 978-0-87420-416-2
© 2018 by the Urban Land Institute.
All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of
the contents without written permission of the copyright holder is
prohibited.
About the Urban Resilience Program
ULI’s Urban Resilience Program provides ULI members, the
public, and communities across the United States with informa-
tion on how to be more resilient in the face of climate change.
The Urban Resilience Program seeks to build greater com-
munity resilience through identifying shared strategies and op-
portunities that advance community vision, the natural and built
environment, real estate investment, multipurpose infrastructure,
and long-term vibrancy.
Acknowledgments
ULI wishes to acknowledge and thank its Urban Resilience Pro-
gram funding partners—the Kresge Foundation and the New
York Community Trust—for supporting this publication, the Ten
Principles for Building Resilience workshop, and the associated
resilience Advisory Services panels and Technical Assistance
Program panels (TAPs).
ULI also wishes to thank the engaged workshop participants
for their expertise and wisdom. A special thank-you for chair-
ing the workshop is extended to Marilyn Jordan Taylor, former
global chairman of ULI, who facilitated and led the workshop
and has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to com-
munity resilience.
This workshop and report build on many prior resilience proj-
ects and research initiatives, including ULI Advisory Services
panels led by dozens of ULI member volunteers. The workshop
participants and the report authors also acknowledge the lead-
ership roles of partner organizations and colleagues such as
the White House Task Force on Storm Sandy, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development’s National Disaster
Rebuilding Competition, Rebuild by Design, and Rockefeller
Foundation initiatives such as 100 Resilient Cities and Struc-
tures of Coastal Resilience.
Ten Principles for
Building Resilience
Contents
About This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ten Principles for Building Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Understand Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Strengthen Job and Housing Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Promote Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Leverage Community Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Redefine How and Where to Build . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Build the Business Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Accurately Price the Cost of Inaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Design with Natural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Maximize Co-benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10. Harness Innovation and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
ULI Resilience Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
ULI Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
2
LI members developed
Ten Principles for Building Resilience
through a 2017
workshop that analyzed the findings of the Institute’s ten resilience-focused
Advisory Services panels, as well as other resilience-focused projects led by the
Urban Resilience program and ULI district councils. The goal of the workshop
was to determine the key themes of ULI’s resilience work and then succinctly
describe these themes within the framework of ten principles, addressing social,
environmental, and economic factors. This report is part of a long line of
Ten
Principles
documents published by ULI over the past 15 years, including
Ten Prin-
ciples for Building Healthy Places
and
Ten Principles for Coastal Development
.
Workshop participants included ULI members who participated in the Advisory Ser-
vices panels, panel sponsors, subject matter experts, and participants from district
council resilience activities. The workshop included presentations of each Advisory
Services panel’s findings, brainstorming, discussion, deliberation, and writing.
The Advisory Services program is one of ULI’s longest-running programs, having
been established in the 1940s. Between 2013 and 2017, ULI’s Urban Resilience
and Advisory Services program hosted multiple panels each year explicitly focused
on resilient land use and development strategy. These panels have addressed a
range of challenges and contexts, including regional planning in Colorado, urban
waterfront planning in Maine, urban heat islands in New York City, suburban growth
patterns in Louisiana, and climate adaptation planning in Miami–Dade County,
Florida. The communities included places that had recently experienced extreme
events, such as hurricanes or flash floods, and others seeking to enhance their
preparedness for such events.
This report is the output of the workshop. It is designed to serve as a resource for
ULI members, including land use professionals, real estate developers, designers,
sustainability experts, and policy makers; city officials; community activists; and
others involved in building and creating policies to enhance urban resilience.
For more information about ULI’s Urban Resilience program, visit http://www.uli.org/
resilience.
For more information about ULI’s Advisory Services program, visit https://americas.uli.
org/programs/advisory-services/.
The Ten Principles for Building Resilience work-
shop analyzed ULI’s resilience-focused Advisory
Services panels and TAPs from 2013 to 2017,
which proposed resilient approaches to land use
and development for 14 communities and regions
across the United States.
Panelists at the workshop brainstormed in
working groups.
About This Report
LEAH SHEPPARD/ULI
3
Workshop Participants
Marilyn Jordan Taylor
Former Global Chairman, ULI
Professor of Architecture and Urbanism
University of Pennsylvania School of Design
Senior Adviser, Rebuild by Design
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Zelalem Adefris
Climate Resilience Program Manager
Catalyst Miami
Miami, Florida
Janice Barnes
Principal/Global Resilience Director
Perkins + Will
New York, New York
Matthijs Bouw
Founder, One Architecture
Lecturer and Rockefeller Urban
Resilience Fellow
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Dennis Carlberg
Sustainability Director
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts
Justin Chapman
Development Manager
Skanska
Washington, District of Columbia
Tracy Gabriel
Associate Director
D.C. Office of Planning
Washington, District of Columbia
Mariane Jang
Senior Manager, Innovation in Mobility
and Urban Planning, City Solutions
100 Resilient Cities
New York, New York
Ladd Keith
Planning Lecturer, College of
Architecture, Planning, and
Landscape Architecture
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
John Macomber
Senior Lecturer, Finance
Harvard Business School
Boston, Massachusetts
Molly McCabe
CEO and Founder
HaydenTanner
Bigfork, Montana
Cynthia McHale
Director of Insurance
Ceres
Boston, Massachusetts
Christine Morris
Chief Resilience Officer
City of Norfolk
Norfolk, Virginia
Jim Murley
Chief Resilience Officer
Miami–Dade County
Miami, Florida
Josh Murphy
Senior Geospatial Analyst
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
Washington, District of Columbia
Phil Payne
Chief Executive Officer
Gingko Residential
Charlotte, North Carolina
Katharine Burgess
Senior Director, Urban Resilience
Leah Sheppard
Associate, Urban Resilience
Erica T. Ellis
Intern, Urban Resilience
ULI Project Leads
Workshop Participants
Chairman
Workshop participants included ULI members and staff who have participated in
resilience-focused Advisory Services panels and projects across the United States.
ULI
4
Introduction
Defining Resilience
The Urban Land Institute, in partnership with
numerous other organizations active in the built
environment such as the American Planning
Association, the U.S. Green Building Council,
and the American Institute of Architects, defines
resilience as “the ability to prepare and plan
for, absorb, recover from, and more suc-
cessfully adapt to adverse events.” Central
to this definition is the ability to “bounce back”
from these events, solving problems and prevent-
ing hardship in the future.
As weather events become more frequent and
intense due to climate change, disruptions and
stressors become a common concern among city
officials and residents alike. From sea-level rise
to heat waves, from storm surge to drought, the
impacts of climate change threaten the built envi-
ronment in ways that have serious consequences
for the health, viability, and economic vitality of
our future.
Addressing these issues requires projects and
programs that both enhance preparedness and
offer other economic, environmental, and social
co-benefits. In short, real estate projects, land use
strategies, and infrastructure investments should
not only make communities less vulnerable, but
also strengthen cities overall, enhancing environ-
mental performance, economic opportunity, and
social cohesion.
Chairman’s Message
e are all living at risk. The challenge before us is to determine how we,
together, respond to the specific risks that individuals and communities
face, including extreme weather events, rising rivers and seas, economic stress-
es, failing systems of infrastructure, terrorism, political division, fractures in social
cohesion, aging populations, and displacement of refugees.
The recent rise in monster hurricanes and devastating earthquakes as well as the
persistence of terrorist events have awakened us to an understanding that what
is happening to others can also happen to us. Disruptive and destructive events,
particularly those related to the impacts of climate change, are likely to be an
increasing part of all of our lives. Building resilience in response to these challenges
entails recognizing vulnerabilities, identifying community-led initiatives, and formu-
lating and proactively advancing policies, plans, and projects that meet community
needs and achieve shared benefits
Around the globe, many regions, cities, and neighborhoods are doing just that:
taking action to acknowledge risks and addressing vulnerabilities with fresh and
smarter approaches to engagement, land use and development, and infrastructure
and environmental investments. Others have not yet done so. Beginning after Hur-
ricane Katrina in 2005, ULI members have teamed up with experts, advisers, and
local public and private leaders to work with threatened communities to create fresh
visions and investment strategies for enhancing resilience.
ULI’s work in building resilience, led by its Urban Resilience program, has spread to
many communities across North America, where ULI has hosted Advisory Services
panels and Technical Assistance Program panels (TAPs) focused on resilient land
use and development. These communities have included locations devastated by
recent events, such as the New York metropolitan region after Sandy and Louisiana
after the 2016 floods, and communities that have not recently experienced extreme
events but are nevertheless vulnerable. This report seeks to identify the principles
that tie this resilience work together and distill common approaches for success,
considering the Institute’s work in locations ranging from Seattle, Washington, to
El Paso, Texas; Duluth, Minnesota; and Miami–Dade County, Florida.
Through these efforts, we have shown that real estate, land use, design, and plan-
ning leaders have an important contributing role to play in reducing cities’ vulner-
abilities by building, and building back, responsibly. The concept of the business
case—the proof of return on individual and collective investment—is a powerful tool
to guide decision making and to assemble the resources to rebuild homes, busi-
nesses, and the infrastructure of water, power, transport, and communication upon
which the well-being of communities relies.
In defining our objectives for this report, we set out to assemble a document that is
comprehensive and concise, taking a broad view of the “state of play” regarding re-
silience while also capturing the best view of the work by ULI resilience panels. Our
5
Marilyn Jordan Taylor, FAIA
Workshop Chairman
goal is to analyze ULI’s body of work on this topic and share ULI’s contributions to
the initiatives and partnerships advancing resilience as a foundational characteristic
of “vibrant and thriving communities” everywhere. At the same time, this document
acknowledges that ULI will focus on the specific contributions we are particularly
qualified to make, to complement the strengths and skills of other organizations.
We have organized this document as a “quick read,” illustrated with photographs,
diagrams, and case studies that make its principles “real.” We hope it will be a
handy tool for ULI members and others seeking to build resilience in their communi-
ties and find broad readership among individuals, professionals in the built environ-
ment, land use and real estate professions, community groups, and public leaders.
Learning to live with risk, accepting our vulnerability to shocks and stresses, and
crafting a collective approach to risk reduction are among the first steps to becom-
ing more resilient. However, a city cannot become more resilient merely through the
actions of high-level decision makers. It is critical that all community members have
access to the information they need about a city’s vulnerabilities—and how these
could directly affect their households, businesses, properties, institutions, and daily
lives. Ensuring that those who are most in need have access to information about
the risks they face is critical, given low-income communities’ often-limited resources
to respond to shock events and subsequent heightened vulnerability.
Marilyn Jordan Taylor
Workshop Chairman
Former Global Chairman, Urban Land Institute
Locations of ULI’s Resilience-Focused Advisory Services Panels and Technical Assistance Panels
6
The Urgency behind Resilience and
Climate Change
Much of ULI’s urban resilience work has focused on how buildings, communi-
ties, and cities can be more resilient to the impacts of climate change. Address-
ing this issue is increasingly urgent: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmo-
sphere continues to rise to record levels every year due to human activity, and
has now risen to levels unseen on the planet in over 800,000 years.i
The global climate is changing and impacts are being recorded across a range
of observations in the United States.ii Global sea level has risen by eight inches
(20 cm) since 1880 and is anticipated to rise another one to four feet (0.3 to 1.2
m) by 2100.iii Along the coasts, some communities are already experiencing
tidal flooding with significant frequency, even on a daily basis. For example, in
the 310-year-old community of Annapolis, Maryland, the city dock is anticipated
to flood more than once a day by 2045.iv In coastal and noncoastal regions
alike, flooding from extreme rainfall also is a concern, since heavy downpours
have increased particularly in the last several decades.v Temperature increases
of 1.3°F to 1.9°F have also been recorded in the United States, with the past
decade being the warmest on record.vi Rising temperatures are leading to an
increased likelihood of drought, heatwaves, and wildfires, such as the 2017
wildfires in California.
The historic core of downtown
Annapolis is vulnerable to
both sunny-day flooding and
flooding from storm events.
The city’s Weather It Together
initiative, which was supported
by ULI Baltimore, explored how
to enhance resilience through a
joint historic preservation and
hazard mitigation strategy.
CITY OF A NNAPOLIS
7
Some of these climate impacts may take the form of severe events that are well
covered by the media, such as hurricanes Katrina, Harvey, Irma, and Maria, but
many of the effects of a changing climate will be experienced in a more chronic
way, such as slightly hotter summers year by year or prolonged droughts. Along
with the obvious environmental impacts from a changing climate, such as deg-
radation of natural habitat, there also are clear economic and social impacts.
Built infrastructure can be pushed to the brink of its working capacity, such as
airport runways closing during heatwaves and coastal flooding forcing cities to
redesign their wastewater treatment systems. During extreme climate events, the
most vulnerable populations, such as the low income, homeless, sick, elderly,
and children, are often most at risk of climate impacts, making climate justice a
critical topic.
In the face of these adverse climate impacts, leaders in communities around
the world are investing resources in resilience to help their communities recover
from extreme events, and to bounce forward and thrive. In the United States,
more than 2,500 mayors, governors, business leaders, and others joined the
“We Are Still In” movement, pledging to comply with the Paris Climate Accord
This chart shows the projected
increase in the number of days
per year with temperatures
over 95 degrees Fahrenheit in
El Paso, Texas, which hosted
a resilience panel in 2016.
Indicating a potential doubling
of extreme heat days, the blue
and red shaded areas show the
range in climate model projec-
tions for low (RCP4.5) and high
(RCP8.5) emission scenarios,
respectively. Solid lines repre-
sent the median projections for
each emission scenario. During
the panel, ULI explored how the
design of an active transpor-
tation infrastructure could
address increasing tempera-
tures and drought, among other
climate change impacts.
GARFIN , GREGG; LEROY, SA RAH; AND JO NES, HUNTER : DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED HEAT HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR
LONG-TERM RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE AND WEATHER EXTREMES IN THE EL PASO-JUÁREZ-LAS CRUCES REGION (2 017)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090
Days with Maximum Temperature above 95°F (d)
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
8
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep global warming below a cata-
strophic 2°C increase.vii
Increasing numbers of communities are also exploring ways to address climate
impacts that have multiple benefits, such as green infrastructure, which can help
manage increasing precipitation as well as decrease urban heat. Well-planned
investments in resilience can improve a community’s economic performance
and livability, as well as weather the changing climate.
The Role of a Chief Resilience Officer
The chief resilience officer (CRO) is an innovative position in municipal govern-
ment that was introduced by 100 Resilient Cities, an initiative of the Rockefeller
Foundation. A CRO can help shape thinking about how decisions and priori-
ties affect the ability of their city not only to survive a possible disaster, but also
to adapt, grow, and thrive no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute
shocks a city experiences.
A CRO often reports directly to the city’s chief executive, and acts as the city’s
point person for preparing the city for its risks, helping to coordinate all of the
city’s resilience efforts. The CRO also works to ensure that the city applies
resilience thinking to local decision making to achieve multiple goals and deliver
Buffalo Bayou Park, which won
a ULI Global Award for Excel-
lence in 2017, is an example of
green infrastructure that also
offers flood protection and
recreational benefits, including
access to the bayou via Texas’s
longest paddling trail.
JONNU SIN GLETON, SWA G ROUP
9
multiple benefits in any policy or project. ULI has worked with CROs to address
land use challenges in numerous locations, including Norfolk, Virginia; Miami–
Dade County, Florida; and El Paso, Texas.
The exact nature of the CRO position varies from city to city, but the following
are fundamental to the role of a CRO, shared by CRO workshop participants Jim
Murley (Miami–Dade County) and Christine Morris (city of Norfolk):
1. Working across government departments to help a city improve internal com-
munications, and to address its own complexities. By facilitating communication
that reaches across sometimes-significant internal divisions, the CRO promotes
new collaboration; makes sure that offices are not wasting resources doing
duplicative work; and promotes synergy between the various projects and the
plans that agencies are drafting.
2. Bringing together a wide array of stakeholders to learn about the city’s chal-
lenges and help build support for individual initiatives, and for resilience building
in general. These stakeholders include government officials, and it is critical that
representatives from the private sector, nonprofit organizations, and community
groups also be included.
3. Leading resilience thinking for the city and developing a resilience strategy,
to help identify the city’s resilience challenges, its capabilities and plans to ad-
dress them, and then to identify the gaps between these two.
4. Engaging in defining policy and project initiatives, and under some circum-
stances, leading their implementation of resilience building in their communities.
Effective CROs perform all these functions, helping their cities manage their
own complexities to increase the impact of resilience efforts, and collaborat-
ing externally to identify and integrate lessons other cities have learned, so that
solutions scale globally.
10
Ten Principles for
Building Resilience
Understand Vulnerabilities
Understanding how shocks and stresses increase risks is the first step
toward building resilience.
Promote Equity
Pursuing equity means purposefully addressing racial, social,
environmental, and economic injustices to build stronger communities
and to support the most vulnerable communities in reducing risk.
Leverage Community Assets
Identifying and leveraging existing assets will enable communities to
bounce back better.
Redene How and Where to Build
Building resilience entails identifying and investing in places and
infrastructure that are the most likely to endure.
Strengthen Job and Housing Opportunities
Cities with a diversity of jobs and housing choices are more resilient
and better prepared for extreme events and other challenges.
Ten Principles for Building Resilience
11
Harness Innovation and Technology
Innovation related to infrastructure, mobility, data, and information
tracking can improve response to crisis and strengthen resilience
for the long term.
Maximize Co-benets
Risk reduction initiatives and infrastructure can also include elements
that enhance quality of life and economic development potential.
Design with Natural Systems
Designing resilience relies upon an understanding of the function
and geography of natural systems and how they can help strengthen
manmade systems and communities.
Accurately Price the Cost of Inaction
Recent extreme weather events suggest that the costs of not
investing in resilience and risk reduction are dramatically increasing
.
Build the Business Case
Strategies that prepare for and mitigate climate-related risks can create
value and provide a strong return on investment.
12
very community, in some way, is vulnerable to hazards, whether natural or
manmade. These hazards, or extreme events, can include floods, storms,
heat waves, earthquakes, and major infrastructure failures, as well as other crises
such as terrorist attacks or economic disruptions. Acknowledging the potential for
disruption by, and the cascading consequences from, peak events like these is
arguably the first and foremost component of resilience.
The increasing severity and frequency of storms and other natural events is
heightening awareness of vulnerability to water, fire, and earthquakes—signifi-
cant, disruptive occurrences. Violent attacks motivated by terrorism and hatred
are challenging our sense of personal security. The Rockefeller Foundation, as
part of the 100 Resilient Cities program, popularized the term
shocks
to describe
such short-term, erratic events.
Disruption by large-scale hazards can quickly raise awareness regarding a
community’s vulnerabilities and the critical need to be prepared for future events.
However, the risks to human health, the economy, and society in general are far
too great to rely on an initial disruption to inspire a desire for change.
Defining Shocks and
Stresses
The 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) initiative was
pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation, which
supports a network of 100 chief resilience officers
(CROs) around the world. The initiative is widely
credited with popularizing a definition of resilience
that focuses on acute shocks and chronic stresses.
Shocks are sudden and extreme events,
or disasters, while stresses are long-term
social, economic, and environmental
issues that undermine system responses
to hazards. Stresses can increase a commu-
nity’s vulnerability to shocks and limit its ability
to bounce back after a major event. Examples of
shocks and stresses include the following:
Examples of Shocks:
1Understand Vulnerabilities
Understanding how shocks and stresses increase risks is the first step
toward building resilience.
Coastal flooding
Earthquakes
Heat waves
Hurricanes
Infrastructure failure
Landslides
Rainwater/
nuanced flooding
Riverine flooding
Terrorist attacks
Tornadoes
Wildfires
Examples of Stresses:
Abuse of alcohol and
drugs (e.g., opioids)
Aging or declining
population
Air quality problems
Crime
Declining middle class
Drought
Failing infrastructure
Food deserts and lack
of food access
Heat island
Homelessness
Insufficient city
revenues/financial
insecurity
Insufficient
transportation system
Lack of affordable
housing
Lack of social cohesion
Potential population
influx
Poverty/inequality
Sea-level rise,
subsidence and coastal
erosion
Unemployment
Water quality and
management problems
ULI Boston’s Living with Water workshop developed design
interventions for Boston’s urban neighborhoods to address
sea-level rise. First and foremost, the workshop acknowledged
the vulnerability of the city’s coastal areas, many of which are
historically filled-in tidelands, susceptible to both sea-level
rise and land subsidence. Some design solutions addressed a
potential 7.5 feet (2.3 m) of sea-level rise, as depicted in this
aerial view.
BOSTON H ARBOR NOW, THE URBAN IM PLICATIONS OF LIVING WITH WATER (2015)
Key: Flood Depths
0–2 feet
2–4 feet
4–6 feet
> 6 feet
13
On Site with Advisory
Services: Norfolk, Virginia
Context and assignment: Fort Norfolk is a
waterfront site on the banks of the Elizabeth River,
northwest of downtown Norfolk. The site includes
substantial vacant waterfront land, as well as a
diverse mix of current uses, including parking, a
television station, and offices for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, People for the Ethical Treat-
ment of Animals, and the American Red Cross.
The city of Norfolk invited ULI to recommend
land use strategies for the site, considering the
increased likelihood of coastal and tidal flooding
in the future. Norfolk is among the most vulnerable
cities to sea-level rise in the country, given its
coastal geography and regional subsidence; sea
level has risen 14.5 inches (36.8 cm) in the region
over the past 80 years.viii
Key finding: In 2002, a ULI panel had assessed
the site and recommended the development of
a mixed-use urban residential village, citing its
waterfront location as a promising asset. However,
the 2014 resilience-focused panel instead pro-
posed pivoting development to a recently opened
light-rail station inland. The waterfront space could
then offer a site for community space that could
both offer protection from storm surge and serve
as a neighborhood amenity.
The panel also noted the potential for limited
demand for waterfront properties due to their
inherent vulnerability. In the two years since the
panel, Zillow has indicated a continued decrease
in the value of waterfront properties on or near the
Fort Norfolk site.ix
Specific Assets in the 100-Year Floodplain in the Portland Region
Asset category South Portland Portland
Physical utility
infrastructure
Electrical substation and small
Peaker Power Plant in Mill Creek
Wastewater treatment plant
Sanitary pumping stations
Gas primary pumping station
Commercial/Industrial Oil storage and distribution facilities
Marinas
Portland Pipeline
Waterfront business on piers
Commercial Street retail
Elmskip facility
New rail line to Elmskip
Back Cove businesses
Residential Willard Beach neighborhood
Mill Creek neighborhood
Miscellaneous residential units
Condominiums on piers
Back Cove neighborhood
ULI panelists in Portland, Maine, assessed major community assets that are within the 100-year
floodplain, and are therefore exposed to damage due to sea-level rise and the increased probability
of storms.
Alongside major shocks, cities face long-term stresses that weaken their capaci-
ties. These stresses may arise from climate change, such as more regular intense
rain events, increasing temperatures, and drought. Social and economic prob-
lems such as crime, poverty, lack of affordable housing, aging infrastructure, and
insufficient city revenues also are relevant stresses. These issues not only affect
a community’s public health, quality of life, and economic development potential,
but also make recovery from major shocks more difficult.
Learning to live with risk—to accept vulnerability to shocks and stresses and
develop a collective tolerance to risk—is the first step to becoming more resilient.
However, a community cannot become more resilient merely through the actions
of municipal leadership. The business community, the real estate sector, neigh-
borhood and civic groups, and households all have important perspectives to
share and roles to play.
For the private and real estate sectors, acknowledging vulnerabilities entails
understanding the risks to assets and potential costs of recovery.
For local government, acknowledging vulnerability entails establishing which
geographical areas, communities, businesses, infrastructure systems, and
other assets are at risk.
For civic groups, neighborhoods, and households, recognizing vulnerability
means exploring how a major event could directly affect families, homes, and
livelihoods.
14
lthough climate vulnerabilities and the likelihood of natural disasters are often
front and center in discussions of resilience, social and economic ecosys-
tems are extremely important contributors to a city’s overall ability to recover and
bounce back. Notably, long-term stresses related to a lack of jobs and economic
opportunities make communities more vulnerable to shocks.
Jobs, and a degree of job security, are important to everyone. Chronic concern
about job vulnerability and housing availability makes individuals and households
more susceptible to shocks, such as extreme weather events, and stresses, such
as a lack of education opportunities and expensive health care.
To recover quickly from shocks, cities must have healthy economies that can
withstand crises affecting a single industry. Coastal communities, which can be
particularly vulnerable to major storms and often rely on tourism, offer one clear
illustration of the potential for economic loss. For example, Superstorm Sandy is
estimated to have caused a loss of $950 million worth of tourism spending in New
Jersey in 2013, and to have reduced employment for more than 11,000 hotel,
food service, retail, amusement, and transportation sector employees.x
Having a diverse economy, without reliance on a single industry vulnerable to the
trends of globalization or potential adverse events, has obvious, myriad benefits
beyond enhanced resilience. Similarly, cities require systems redundancies and
emergency preparedness plans to maintain business continuity in the face of
major crises.
A diverse housing stock and housing affordability also are key components of a
resilient community. According to a 2015 study published by the Joint Center for
Housing Studies at Harvard University, high-priced housing is not just a large-
2Strengthen Job and Housing
Opportunities
Cities with a diversity of jobs and housing choices are more resilient
and better prepared for extreme events and other challenges.
ULI panelists in Portland
and South Portland, Maine,
observed that the towns’
maritime economy could
be dramatically affected by
changing sea temperatures
arising from climate change.
This would ultimately affect not
only the maritime industries but
also the tourism and heritage
industries, which rely on the
charm of a visible working
waterfront. As a result, some of
the panel’s recommendations
focused on how to diversify
the local economy and attract
employers that would support
the existing maritime and
tourism industries.
STEV E LIPOFSK Y, WATERFRONTS OF PORTLAND AND SOUTH PORTLAND, MAINE (20 14)
15
city problem.xi In fact, many U.S. cities are experiencing housing affordability
crises, with few lower- or middle-income families, including service and support
professionals, able to afford to live close to their places of work. Diversity within
the housing supply, including housing for a diversified workforce and workers es-
sential in emergencies, will help build the ability to “bounce back” from a severe
weather event as well as long-term economic strength. Affordable housing also
provides stability by increasing discretionary income for vulnerable families and
helps prevent homelessness.
Most critical of all, workforce housing is essential to a city’s ability to recover after
a major event. Emergency responders, nurses, and construction workers are
typically those who supply the skills and the labor to respond to shocks such as
severe storms, floods, heat waves, and droughts. These low- and middle-income
professionals often struggle to return or continue their professional lives after
major events, a trajectory that can be exaggerated when a city lacks affordable
housing. For example, New Orleans, a city that did not suffer from high cost of liv-
ing in 2005, experienced a severe shortage of contractors after Katrina, delaying
homeowners from rebuilding and leaving many vulnerable to price gouging or
unreliable service.xii
In short, when one is speaking of resilience, all types of housing are important
to building a city’s capacity to respond to shocks and stresses, but workforce
housing is of paramount importance. Implementing affordable housing policies,
especially policies targeting housing for key workers and emergency personnel,
offers one key strategy for enhancing resilience.
Estimated Number of Low-Income Renter Households
in Larimer County, 2009
HUD designation Households Number of cost-burdened
households
Percentage cost
burdened
Low income 7,788 2,336 30
Very low income 8,651 6,629 77
Extremely low income 13,918 11,065 80
Note: Cost-burdened households pay 30 percent or more of income on rent.
ULI panelists in northern Colorado observed a significant housing affordability gap in Larimer County,
which has a population of roughly 300,000 people. To address this gap, the panel recommended
developing a range of unit types at various affordability levels, including smaller efficiency units suitable
for seasonal workers, mixed-income multifamily units, and single-family starter homes.
On Site with Advisory
Services: Northern Colorado
Context and assignment: In 2013, northern
Colorado experienced devastating flooding, which
made major roads between towns impassable. One
year later, the towns of Fort Collins, Loveland, and
Estes Park invited ULI to explore how to enhance
resilience through a regional land use and devel-
opment strategy covering a 50-mile (80 km) study
area, considering preparedness for extreme events
such as floods and wildfires.
The region has a severe lack of affordable housing.
Many essential workers had daily commutes of 60
to 80 miles (96 to 129 km), and rental properties in
Estes Park had a mere 2 percent vacancy rate over
the two years prior to the panel.
Key finding: ULI’s panel recognized that this lack
of accessible housing led to significant costs and
barriers to recovery after the floods. When roads
were impassable due to flooding, some Estes Park
hospital staff faced three-and-a-half-hour drives to
work. As a result, the hospital was forced to send
in staff by helicopter, providing housing and meal
per diems, which ultimately cost about $700,000
in a single month.
Strategies and tools: The panel recommended
that the three towns consider housing diversity as
a key component of resilience and make proactive
choices to increase the availability of affordable
housing. This was particularly critical for key work-
ers, including medical and emergency manage-
ment professionals. Recommendations to encour-
age housing diversity included the following:
Conduct a housing needs assessment for
essential workers; and
Establish a housing fund to develop affordable
multifamily housing for key workers, ensuring
they can better access the communities they
serve during both peak events and regularly. A
$3 million investment could result in 25,000
square feet (2,300 sq m) of multifamily housing,
or 29,850-square-foot (2,800 sq m) two-
bedroom apartments.
16
ncreasing equity is critical to achieving resilience. Communities with the least
financial resources are typically most at risk in times of extreme events: they
are the least likely to have sufficient resources to support needs after an extreme
event, and have the least job security, which can often affect decision making and
preparedness before an event. Forty-six percent of Americans do not feel that they
would be able to handle an unexpected $400 expense—a figure far below the like-
ly recovery cost per household after a major storm event.xiii Even with subsequent
federal aid or support from community organizations and recovery programs,
property losses and delays due to home inspections, insurance payments, and
work interruptions can be debilitating.
A resilient community therefore either has a more equitable distribution of resources,
or ensures that those with fewer resources are better protected from peak events
that could lead to damages. If vulnerable communities cannot bounce back after
a shock, a city’s economic, social, and services ecosystems will be strained. Simi-
larly, unemployment, lack of job security, and lack of affordable housing are major
stressors to a city in good times and after extreme events.
Research institute PolicyLink defines equity as “just and fair inclusion. An equi-
table society is one in which all can participate and prosper. The goal of equity
must be to create conditions that allow all to reach their full potential.”xiv An equi-
table society considers the needs of and opportunities for all residents, including
people of all income levels, races, ages, and levels of physical ability, seeking
to strengthen local capacities. An equitable society also seeks to ensure that all
communities share and receive access to the benefits of investments in infra-
structure, land use, and development. As Mayor Bill Peduto of Pittsburgh suc-
cinctly stated, “If it’s not for all, it’s not for us.”xv
Low-income communities are often particularly vulnerable to the impacts of cli-
mate change, due to the likelihood that low-income neighborhoods are located
in geographically at-risk parts of cities. For flood-vulnerable communities, low-
income residents are often prone to nuisance flooding and are in harm’s way
during storms and hurricanes. Moreover, “climate gentrification,” or the process
by which affluent populations move away from historically high-value yet vulner-
able areas and move inland, is becoming a concern among low-income com-
munities that are not located in vulnerable parts of cities. For example, many
inland communities in Miami–Dade County have expressed concern about
the prospect of displacement if residents of beachfront neighborhoods decide
to move inland. In cases like this, fears of displacement—both physical and
cultural—are part of a larger conversation about preparedness, climate change,
and housing affordability.
3Promote Equity
Pursuing equity means purposefully addressing racial, social,
environmental, and economic injustices to build stronger communities
and to support the most vulnerable communities in reducing risk.
Defining and Applying
Equity
Embedding equity into land use decision making
is a multifaceted, nonlinear process. The U.S.
Sustainability Directors Network has proposed the
following framework for better embedding equity
into urban sustainability work:
Procedural equity: “Inclusive, accessible,
authentic engagement and representation in
processes to develop or implement sustainability
programs and policies.”
Distributional equity: “Programs and policies
result in fair distribution of benefits and burdens
across all segments of a community, prioritizing
those with the highest need.”
Structural equity: “Decision makers insti-
tutionalize accountability; decisions are made
with a recognition of historical, cultural, and
institutional dynamics and structures that have
routinely advantaged privileged groups in society
and resulted in chronic, cumulative disadvan-
tages for subordinated groups.”
Transgenerational equity: “Decisions
consider generational impacts and don’t result in
unfair burdens on future generations.”
xvi
ULI’s workshop in St. Petersburg, Florida,
proposed strategies for the city to engage local
communities in resilience planning and enhance
emergency preparedness. Catalyst Miami’s Clear
Program was one best practice shared; the
12-week training program on climate resilience
provides graduates with grounding to become
community leaders and organizers.
CATALYST MIAMI
17
Increased temperatures and the effects of
urban heat islands are a major concern for
Gowanus, given the Brooklyn neighborhood’s
lack of green spaces, heavy traffic, and lower air
and water quality. During a ULI New York TAP,
panelists noted how the urban heat islands have
a disproportional impact on the disadvantaged,
including the elderly and low-income households
unable to afford air conditioning. This image
indicates the existing heat corridor along Third
Avenue, which could be improved by planting
trees and implementing other types of green
infrastructure.
As vulnerable and low-income communities face unprecedented risk of impact
from extreme events, a variety of strategies enhance equity and build resilience:
Earlier dialogue. Vulnerable and low-income community members should be a key
part of resilience conversations from the very beginning of the resilience planning and
decision-making process. Their input can help community leaders and public decision
makers define the full extent of the vulnerabilities faced, and craft realistic solutions.
Inclusive decision making. When decision makers are representative of the communi-
ties they serve, disadvantaged and low-income communities are more likely to receive
solutions that accurately respond to their needs.
Additional resources. Planning for extreme events should assume that low-income
and disadvantaged communities will need additional resources to cover preventative
measures that should be taken prior to extreme events, such as preparing homes for
incoming storms, and higher-than-average resources to recover from the impacts of
extreme events.
Prioritized investments. Investments in infrastructure and mitigation should prioritize the
safety and security of low-income individuals and communities of color that are most in
harm’s way.
Double-bottom-line solutions. Resilience resource allocations and investments should
affirmatively seek to provide other quality-of-life or economic development opportunities,
or co-benefits, in addition to their resilience benefits.
JEFFRE Y RAVEN/ ULI, A VISION FOR A GREENER, HEALTHIER, COOLER GOWANU S (2018)
On Site with Advisory Services: Seattle, Washington
Context and assignment: The South Park, George-
town, Port of Seattle, and SoDo (South of Downtown)
areas along the Duwamish River are Seattle’s most
vulnerable areas for flooding induced by sea-level rise.
The areas are also home to a larger group of minority
and low-income families in comparison to the surround-
ing counties.
In 2015, the city of Seattle invited ULI to study how
the neighborhoods of the Duwamish Valley could be
more resilient to flooding caused by sea-level rise
and changes in precipitation. The city was particularly
interested in understanding potential public/private part-
nership models for funding infrastructure such as levees
or sea walls, opportunities for modified building and
zoning codes, and best practices for engaging residents
in the decision-making process.
Key finding: The panel observed that a more resilient
Duwamish Valley would not only be more physically
prepared for floods but also exhibit other conditions
related to social and economic systems. The panel
proposed “ideal conditions” for resilience in Duwamish,
including high internal cohesion and external connectiv-
ity; improved welfare, health, and economy; a diversified
portfolio of land uses; and increased self-reliance and
internal investment. Social equity, cohesion, and invest-
ment in social networks were central to many of these
conditions. As a result, the panel’s recommendations
focused on how to support the local communities in
Duwamish and engage them most effectively.
Strategies and tools: Recommendations made by
the panel include the following:
Creating programs, including in-kind and financial
assistance, to help low-income residents work to-
ward personal resilience through home elevation and
relocation assistance, transit access, and workforce
opportunities.
Planning inclusive community-wide events to
cohesively communicate trends, development,
and concerns, including an annual “state of the
Duwamish” summit. A summit would communicate
critical information about environmental remedia-
tion, development prospects, future engagement
opportunities, and more, at a time and place sensitive
to child care, work, and accessibility needs, and with
information provided in multiple languages. The city
has since implemented this recommendation.
Tailoring outreach strategies through Seattle’s
Department of Neighborhoods, including providing
interpreters, leveraging existing community groups,
and offering meetings at multiple times of day.
Formally engaging in the existing network of non-
profit organizations.
Producing a strategy to engage philanthropic organi-
zations in order to better familiarize foundations with
the needs of the area.
18
o be ready to bounce back from extreme events, communities must first
identify their assets. Strengthening, leveraging, and protecting these assets
will present opportunities to be more prepared for eventual shocks, as well as
otherwise improve a local economy and quality of life.
Community assets may relate to geographical location, economy, culture, or skills
of the local population. Categorizing these assets, alongside relevant vulner-
abilities, is a critical early step for any resilience planning process, whether at
the community or site scale. For example, the RAND Corporation’s Community
Resilience Action Checklist recommends an initial focus on assets, considering
competencies, infrastructure, equipment, money, services, relationships, and
data.xvii
Advancing a scan of assets into an action plan relevant to resilience requires an
understanding of how vulnerabilities and assets fit together; an appreciation of
the changing roles of the players within the government, resident, and business
community; and the resources available for investment.
Valuable and distinctive assets relevant at the city or community scale could
include the following:
Valuable and distinctive assets relevant at the site scale could include:
In local government, interdisciplinary and cross-agency collaboration is essential
to both identifying assets and understanding ways to leverage them and attract
funding from the federal, state, private, and philanthropic sectors. Municipal and
business leaders should encourage the sharing and exchange of resources
across city agencies to understand the multifaceted character of community
assets and find efficient strategies to invest and build from these opportunities.
Community involvement is also key for any municipality or other entity seeking
to initiate an asset-mapping exercise. Involvement from and engagement with
local business, resident, and civic communities are critical to fully mapping and
understanding assets and opportunities and developing locally appropriate
solutions. Groups that may contribute to any asset mapping or planning exercise
could include civic leaders, businesses, community organizations, community
development corporations, public health leaders, and others.
4Leverage Community Assets
Identifying and leveraging existing assets will enable communities
to bounce back better.
Economic drivers
Environmental qualities
Location
Workforce
Community leadership
Social networks
Culture and history.
Location and connectivity
Geographical, topographical, and
natural features
Infrastructure
Current and future community.
A Rose Center study visit, hosted by ULI and the
National League of Cities, focused on building
resilience in the Mountain View neighborhood of
Anchorage, Alaska, which is the most diverse zip
code in the United States. The panel noted the
many existing assets in the neighborhood that
serve as well-used social resources and hubs,
such as the Mountain View library.
KATHARINE BURGESS/ ULI
19
ULI’s panel in Lafayette focused on how to encourage more resilient
development patterns, including residential development downtown.
The panel found that the downtown already had many local assets
that could be leveraged to create a more lively and unique destination,
such as historic architecture, independent retailers, and Parc Sans
Souci, which hosts a popular annual festival.
KATHA RINE BURGESS /ULI, DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA (2017)LEAH SHEPPARD/ULI, DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA (2017)
On Site with Advisory Services: Lafayette, Louisiana
Context and assignment: In August 2016, Lafayette, Louisiana, experienced a
1,000-year rain event, during which 24 inches (61 cm) of rain fell over a three-day period.
The flood damaged approximately 3,500 homes, requiring an estimated $100 million in
repairs. This flood significantly raised local awareness about the region’s vulnerability to
major storms, particularly in low-lying parts of the parish, and led the Lafayette Consoli-
dated Government to invite ULI to study how the city could encourage more resilient land
use patterns.
Key finding: The panel found that resilient development would entail a focus on
downtown Lafayette. The downtown offers abundant assets, including a relatively high-
ground location, a rail and public transit center with direct access to New Orleans, an
adjacent university, historic architecture, and cultural facilities. However, the downtown
does not yet have significant residential development. The panel recommended that the
city encourage and incentivize downtown growth to foster a more vibrant downtown that
would not only be less vulnerable to future flooding but also offer numerous opportunities
in terms of economic development and expansion of the local tax base.
Tools and strategies: Leveraging downtown’s assets was a key theme of the panel.
Strategies to achieve this included the following:
Capitalizing on historic building stock to reinforce downtown’s unique character
through infill and adaptive use, thus differentiating it from other areas of the city and
parish, as well as incorporating public art specific to the city and region in future
downtown management plans;
Embracing an entrepreneurial approach to downtown development by using tools like
tax increment financing, bonds, and tax credits and being proactive in efforts to attract
private sector partnerships;
Retrofitting existing spaces to incorporate green infrastructure and other techniques
to manage stormwater and flooding. For example, the current coulee system could be
transformed into a recreational corridor, featuring a waterway and trail system; and
Building resilience into everyday development practice and making investments to
better manage water through new funding streams such as a potential stormwater fee.
20
f the locations of homes, businesses, and government are vulnerable to ma-
jor events, a city must be ready for potential impacts to the economy and to
residents’ safety, health, and welfare. Building resilience entails recognizing
which physical areas are most vulnerable and making strategic decisions to both
protect those in harm’s way and foster a long-term culture shift toward investing in
places and infrastructure that are more likely to endure.
While cities are increasingly acknowledging climate risks and vulnerabilities,
many have yet to do so in the context of their approaches to land use, develop-
ment, and the growth and change of the built environment. Zoning, building
codes, standards, overlays, incentives, and infrastructural investments are among
the tools that can be deployed to address the challenges at multiple scales, rang-
ing from the individual building and the neighborhood to the city and the region.
These approaches should be shaped in response to the conditions, expectations,
and goals of each community. Sometimes, relocation may be a component of
the strategy.
To enhance resilience, cities should support and incentivize development in loca-
tions that are most likely to be secure for the longest period of time. If lucrative
development conditions are in place, the real estate sector is likely to respond,
leading development patterns to shift over the long term to locations that are less
vulnerable. For example, cities that are vulnerable to sea-level rise may focus on
encouraging development on high-ground sites less likely to be affected by rising
sea levels or storm surges.
These land use strategies and investments should ultimately encourage a higher
density of people, activities, and business in parts of a city that have the infra-
structure to thrive in changing conditions. Strategies for beginning such a shift
could include the following:
Introduce density bonuses, opportunities for increased floor/area ratios, or
other incentives, such as streamlined permitting, in parts of a city projected to
be least vulnerable to long-term climate risk.
Prioritize municipal investment in transportation and other infrastructure in parts
of a city least vulnerable to long-term climate risk.
Introduce zoning incentives for modifications to existing buildings and infra-
structure that reflect effective, long-term climate resilience.
Modify zoning to allow for the relocation of building systems above projected
flood elevations whenever permits are issued for open space, building, street,
or infrastructure renovations.
Incorporate zoning and code relief to allow upward expansion to offset the loss
of the lower-level uses and revenue where flooding is an issue.
Fortify buildings and infrastructure in locations that are not practical or cost-
effective to relocate.
5Redene How and Where to Build
Building resilience entails identifying and investing in places and
infrastructure that are the most likely to endure.
In St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, a ULI
panel recommended accommodating projected
population growth by encouraging a “village-in-
the-woods” strategy, which uses smart growth
techniques to concentrate development and
retain local natural resources.
LINDSEY WILLKE/ULI, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA (2015 )
21
Resilient design also entails recognizing how vulnerabilities can be addressed
at the building scale, incorporating technologies enabling more efficient use of
water and energy, and allowing for quick response to peak events. Numerous
design standards, such as LEED, RELi, the Sustainable SITES Initiative, REDi, the
Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines (WEDG), and Fortified, explore how this could
translate for individual buildings or development projects. For example:
Incorporating renewable-energy systems, backup power systems, and the
ability to “island” (i.e., operate off-grid for a period of time) will make properties
better able to manage the impact of major storms.
Design strategies can directly address vulnerabilities to rising waters, such as
increased elevation, the elevation of mechanical features such as boilers and
chillers, and stormwater management best practices.
In regions prone to drought, redefining how and where to build may mean iden-
tifying opportunities for graywater recycling and drought-tolerant landscapes.
However, redefining how and where to build entails not only proactive investment
in the future, but also an acknowledgment of the inherent risks in cities’ current
development patterns. Merely supporting parts of a city that have the potential for
long-term growth presents a major risk: that those living and working in vulnerable
areas will be forgotten. Providing support to these communities, and ensuring that
all people have the social networks and physical infrastructure needed to stay
safe and reach their potential, are also critical facets of building resilience.
Cities will need to establish fair approaches for supporting communities in places
that are physically vulnerable to climate impacts and major events. Thoughtful
relocation strategies, which seek to maintain community fabric and networks and
include residents in the decision-making process, may be part of the solution. If
communities or residents ultimately need to relocate, they should be provided fair
compensation and offered alternatives in nearby neighborhoods, which preserve
access to jobs, civic facilities, and social networks.
Pivoting land use patterns and municipal investment strategies to acknowledge
vulnerabilities and enhance resilience will be a long-term process, and it may take
decades for land use patterns encouraged by new policies to come to fruition. In
the interim, developers, investors, and others who anticipate this potential shift are
likely to see long-term potential in investments that are out of harm’s way.
During the Gowanus TAP, panelists recom-
mended adjusting height limits, or offering
site-specific zoning bonuses for design ap-
proaches that would open up green spaces in
new development, particularly when aligned with
the area’s prevailing winds. Here, two buildings
with identical floor/area ratios (FARs) are shown;
the alternative case has potential to mitigate the
urban heat island effect.
A VISION FOR A GREENER, HEALTHIER, AND COO LER GOWANUS (2018)A VISION FOR A GREENER, HEALTHIER, AND COO LER GOWANUS (2018)
22
Chronic flooding and repetitive losses (indicated by yellow dots)
affect properties in the Arch Creek Basin, many of which overlap
with the contours of the historic creek (green). Some residents in
this area have resorted to applying for FEMA buyouts.
The Arch Creek Basin panel recommended a long-term transfor-
mation of the Arch Creek Estates neighborhood to include a “city
slough” to both provide recreation space and manage water, with
higher residential density on either side.
The Arch Creek Basin long-term master plan envisions transit-oriented
development including affordable relocation housing units around the
proposed new rail station in North Miami.
On Site with Advisory Services: Arch Creek Basin, Miami–Dade County, Florida
Context and assignment: With over 84 miles (135 km) of coastline and a population
of 2.6 million people, Miami–Dade County is one of the most vulnerable areas to sea-
level rise in the United States. Many parts of the county are already regularly experiencing
flooding due to low elevations and drainage problems, and the county is vulnerable to
extreme weather events that could include catastrophic winds and storm surge. South
Florida’s porous substrate also makes traditional defenses, such as levees, less effective
for managing groundwater levels and flooding.
ARCH CREEK BASIN, MIAM I–DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (2016)
MIAMI– DADE COUN TY, ARCH CREEK BASIN, MIAMI–
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (2016)
WALTER MEY ER/ULI, ARC H CREEK BASIN,
MIAMI–DADE COU NTY, FLORIDA (2016)
Key finding: The long-term solution that the panel proposed concentrated development
in the area that would ultimately be the least vulnerable, along a ridge that would soon
offer transit connectivity. The plan also proposed long-term options for relocation for
households that had experienced repetitive losses due to flooding. If these residents opted
to relocate, the flood-prone area, or parts of it, could transition into regional park and
flood preparedness infrastructure along the contours of the historic creek.
Strategies and tools: The recommendations included the following:
Concentrate development in transit-ready sites along the coastal ridge,
including at a new station proposed for NE 125th Street, described as the Transit Op-
portunity Area. This promising opportunity area offers relatively high ground, future
transit connectivity, and the opportunity for a considered mixed-income development
approach including dedicated relocation housing for flood-vulnerable households.
Restore natural systems through the development of a park along the
historic contours of Arch Creek: The panel proposed a long-term strategy to
implement green infrastructure in the areas experiencing repetitive losses, particularly
where households had expressed an interest in relocation through FEMA buyouts. If
these households chose to relocate and ample relocation housing was provided in
the transit-opportunity area, flood-vulnerable sites could ultimately become a “city
slough” park designed to manage water during peak events. The slough would be a
long-term acquisition, and built with an alternative safe housing project, which would
strategically implement parkland along the historic creek contours.
Implement this vision through an Adaptation Action Area: Inter-
governmental cooperation, and even the establishment of regional authorities
or partnerships such as the Southeast Florida Climate Compact, may be
required to propose and implement resilient land use approaches. The panel
recommended the implementation of an Adaptation Action Area and Steering
Committee, which would include representation from all the municipalities as
well as neighborhood residents.
Miami–Dade County invited ULI to study the Arch Creek Basin area, a multijurisdictional
area that comprises approximately 2,838 acres (1,148 ha) and four municipalities, as
well as unincorporated county land. The area is economically diverse and includes sites
that have experienced repetitive losses due to routine flooding, where households had
unsuccessfully applied for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyouts.
The area is also likely to experience development and change, as a future commuter-rail
station will provide an opportunity for transit-oriented development. The panel sought to
address the question of how long-term development and land use patterns in Arch Creek
could pivot to enhance resilience, reversing decades of past development that advanced
regardless of flood vulnerability.
23
Key Tools for Resilient Land Use
ULI’s resilience panels have recommended that cities follow a range of strategies to embed resilience into land use planning. The approaches that generate
the highest level of impact vary depending on local market context, climate conditions, and regulatory options, but some key themes have resonated in
many different communities. The following strategies and tools proposed by various advisory panels offer opportunities to both embed resilience thinking
into long-term development and advance quick wins on the ground.
Resilience building strategy Rationale Example from a panel
Incorporate resilience thinking into existing land
use tools, such as zoning and comprehensive
planning.
Embedding resilience into existing planning
or zoning policy eliminates redundancy and
the potential for community fatigue associated
with a new planning initiative.
The St. Tammany Parish panel recommended embed-
ding resilience thinking into updated land use plans,
such as the Unified Development Code. The city of
Norfolk also offers an implemented example of this
approach; resilience and analysis of vulnerabilities
are fundamental topics in the recent zoning ordinance
rewrite.
Build resilience thinking into existing capital
improvement planning and municipal budgets.
Municipal budgeting and capital improve-
ment plans offer the best possible route for
implementation of resilient infrastructure, as
opposed to dedicated resilience funds, which
are unlikely to address the scope of the prob-
lems sufficiently.
In St. Petersburg, Florida, panelists suggested that the
city align goals in the city’s capital budget with opportu-
nities to build resilience. Miami–Dade County currently
takes this approach with its budget, considering four
pillars of resilience relevant to capital projects: health
and well-being, economy and society, infrastructure
and environment, and leadership and strategy.
Initiate multijurisdictional or cross-jurisdictional
planning approaches.
Planning across borders enables resilience
planning to build from natural systems and
more comprehensively address vulnerabilities
regionally.
In Miami–Dade County, panelists recommended using
an adaptation action area framework to plan for resil-
ience in a 2,800-acre (1,133 ha) flood basin, including
four jurisdictions and unincorporated county land.
Plan at the district scale, considering oppor-
tunities for alternative infrastructure funding,
increased efficiencies, and district-wide value
capture.
District-scale planning offers the opportunity
for resource efficiencies with energy and water
systems, as well as the chance to establish
new funding structures and delivery vehicles.
The Seattle panel proposed the creation of a resilience
district for the Duwamish area, including strategies for
funding resilience investments via a resilience enhance-
ment fund. Although the state of Washington does not
allow tax increment financing in its standard form, the
panel proposed alternative funding strategies for this
district-scale initiative.
Forge new financial partnerships, including with
the private sector.
Many resilient infrastructure projects present
opportunities for both the public and private
sectors, and are therefore natural fits for PPPs.
In Anchorage, the Rose Center Study Visit recom-
mended that the city seek partnerships with the private
sector to invest in resilient infrastructure and develop-
ment, including the local Tribal Corporations.
Harness value creation from new development
or policy change to invest in building resilience.
An upcoming neighborhood redevelopment
can present the opportunity to realize and/or
fund improvements that will benefit both long-
term and new residents to an area.
In the Gowanus neighborhood of Brooklyn, the panel
proposed implementing policies that would capture
some of the real estate value generated by a rezoning to
implement urban heat island mitigation measures such
as parks, green infrastructure, and cool roofs.
Use pilot projects to demonstrate new
approaches and inspire the local community.
Pilot projects offer the opportunity to test and
prototype new approaches to infrastructure
and design, and can also be eligible for alterna-
tive funding sources.
Numerous ULI panels, such as in St. Tammany Parish,
proposed pilot projects related to park design, green
infrastructure, and other resilience topics.
24
6Build the Business Case
Strategies that prepare for and mitigate climate-related risks can
create value and provide a strong return on investment.
aking cities, communities, and buildings more resilient will require sig-
nificant investment from the public, private, and philanthropic sectors.
Developers and finance, insurance, and other private sector parties are likely
to play a key role in building a more resilient city if they see tangible economic
benefits from improving the resilience of buildings and infrastructure. To build
the business case for this investment, cities and other parties dedicated to
resilience need to look at the economic costs of “business as usual” devel-
opment versus the cost savings and revenue generation that would come
through a dedicated investment in resilience.
As cities work to recover from increasingly frequent and intense weather
events, the business case for public investments in resilience becomes more
and more compelling. Local, municipal, and state governments bear the
biggest economic impacts as they work to rebuild damaged infrastructure
and public buildings, and cope with the loss of tax revenue from disrupted
economic activity and stranded assets. Municipalities are also finding that
investments in resilience can serve as a cost-effective alternative to substan-
tial investments in increased capacity for wastewater and energy infrastruc-
ture. For example, capturing stormwater before it reaches a combined outflow
sewage system becomes more cost-effective than increasing the capacity of
sewage treatment facilities.
There can be many different quantifiable “returns on resilience” for develop-
ers as well. For example:
Investments in resilient energy and water systems can introduce short-term
benefits, such as reduced construction costs and/or reduced building
operating expenses.
Resilient design can lead to lower insurance premiums, or better access to
insurance coverage.
Resilience may offer marketing or branding benefits, particularly for future
tenants and owners concerned about a building’s vulnerability to major
events like storms and long-term stresses like sea-level rise.
Future tenants and owners may also see investment in resilience as a
proxy for quality or environmental responsibility.
Long-term benefits can include reduced risk of major damage or disrup-
tion from extreme weather events, improving long-term asset viability and
enhancing property values.
If developers partner with cities to co-develop more resilient infrastructure
that increases access and the likelihood of occupant safety and business
continuity, buildings are likely to be more attractive to future tenants.
A view of the green roof at 1450 Brickell, Miami,
Florida, which was profiled in Returns on Resil-
ience: The Business Case.
ROBIN HILL , RETURNS ON RESILIENCE: THE BUSINESS CASE (2 015)
25
While a compelling business case exists for both cities and developers to invest
in resilience, these returns must be better defined to help all decision makers
decide to invest in resilience initiatives at the community-wide scale and building
scale. A better-defined business case will ultimately engage a broader range of
investors in resilience, including businesses and enterprises, real estate devel-
opers, banks, and insurance funds. Municipalities, community development
organizations, governments, philanthropists, and foundations would also benefit
from understanding the business case for investing in resilience, whether that
translates to physical infrastructure, individual facilities, economic development
tools, or capacity-building initiatives. Without the commitment of additional capital
to both private and public projects that incorporate resilient design, communities
will not see tangible progress.
Fortified Home Building Standards were profiled in
Returns on Resilience: The Business Case.
THE INSUR ANCE INST ITUTE FOR B USINESS AND H OME SAFE TY
Case Studies for the Business Case
Returns on Resilience: The Business Case
is a ULI
report and ongoing research project showcasing
real estate developments that exhibit best
practices in resilient design, from the building to
the neighborhood scale, with positive financial,
operational, and other business outcomes. The
projects profiled have achieved measurable returns
such as increased real estate value, discounted
insurance premiums, marketing value, cost savings
from prevented damages, reduced operating costs,
and more, on account of the decision to invest in
resilient design.
Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital: Located on
a waterfront site at the Charlestown Navy Yard,
Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Boston is de-
signed to keep patients and their families safe from
coastal storms, storm surge, and future impacts of
sea-level rise despite its vulnerable site. The hospital
is built 30 inches (76 cm) above the 500-year
floodplain, with elevated mechanical elements (e.g.,
boilers, chillers, and air handlers for ventilation) on
the top level, and is super-insulated with triple-paned
operable windows, includes an extensive landscape
berm system, and is designed to last four days in
“island mode” in case of a disaster, thanks to an on-
site cogeneration plant. The hospital designers esti-
mated that the resilience investments cost roughly
$1.5 million within the $160 million construction
cost, with about half of this cost contributing to the
encasing of the high-voltage riser to the elevated
mechanicals and the other half covering systems
upgrades for high-efficiency pumps and chillers. The
cogeneration was an additional cost that the hospital
anticipates recouping in an eight-year payback
period, having saved $400,000 on the first year of
operating costs and an anticipated $500,000 per
year after system optimization. The investment in
resilience also enhanced the hospital’s reputation,
elevating Spaulding’s position in the marketplace.
1450 Brickell: Located in Miami, 1450 Brickell is
a commercial/mixed-use Class A office tower that
includes several resilient design aspects to address
risks of hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm
surge. Resilient design features include high-impact-
resistant windows for the entire building, the inclu-
sion of a backup emergency generator, and elevated
ground floors eight feet (2.4 m) above grade. At
the time of construction, 1450 Brickell’s curtain
wall window system was the strongest of any
commercial building in the United States, far above
and beyond the standards of the already stringent
local building code. These investments in resilience
differentiated the project, leading it to fully lease up
in 2013, compared with 40 percent lease-up rates
for two comparable office properties. The developer
attributed this to the interest in business continuity
from tenants such as J.P. Morgan Chase & Com-
pany, H.J. Heinz Company, American Express, and
Bank of New York Mellon.
Fortified Home Building Standards: Fortified Home
Building Standards are a set of performance-based
engineering and building standards that protect
homes from rain, hail, wildfire, and winds up to 130
miles (209 km) per hour. A study of the marginal
effect of Fortified construction standards on home
resale value found a 7 percent increase in resale
value from a sample of 321 homes, about half of
which were built or retrofitted to the Fortified stan-
dard. This consumer recognition of the standard can
be at least partially attributed to correlated insurance
savings. The state of Alabama passed legislation
that requires insurers to offer discounts to owners
of homes that meet the Fortified standard, to create
a program that offers financial incentives to building
new construction using Fortified, and to provide
grants for retrofitting existing homes.
Link to report: https://americas.uli.org/returnson-
resilience.
26
compelling qualitative business case exists for developers and their custom-
ers to mitigate risk from extreme weather events. As climate change leads to
more frequent and intense flooding, fire, and drought, more and more development
assets that do not incorporate resilience strategies have the potential to lose long-
term value, face higher insurance premiums (or be unable to secure any cover-
age), and could even become obsolete in the not-so-distant future. Properly pricing
risks and quantifying the cost of not investing in resilience will help move the market
to better incorporate resilience into real estate development decisions.
For some investors and developers, the current “cost” of not being prepared for
natural disasters is not perceived to be large enough to meaningfully influence
development decisions. Many owners of existing assets do not expect disasters
to have a meaningful impact on their development during their investment horizon.
Or, if they do, they may believe that their insurance will protect them against any
significant long-term losses, or the federal government will pay for rebuilding after
a major disaster. For many, the current cost of addressing long-term climate threats
exceeds the potential return on investment for taking preemptive action.
For real estate end users—such as homeowners, or commercial, retail, or
industrial tenants—the financial benefit associated with proactively preparing for
resilience is often difficult to quantify. In the case of tenants, most do not know
how to meaningfully drive resilience in properties that they did not build and do
not own. The challenges of the current cost/benefit analysis are exacerbated by
public policy that (in many cases) will reimburse owners for some or most of the
cost of rebuilding, and insurance rates and coverage that either do not reflect
the actual risk, are too inexpensive to drive investments in resilience, or are too
opaque to provide meaningful input in a cost/benefit analysis.
There is likely to be increased interest in investing in resilience if today’s model
for federal support after disasters shifts, with reduced support provided for
building owners after storms, particularly those in flood-vulnerable areas that
have experienced repetitive losses. A November 2017 Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) report noted that the share of the U.S. population facing substantial
damages from hurricanes is likely to grow fivefold by 2075, due to climate change
and coastal development patterns.xviii In response, the report recommended
a shift of recovery costs from the federal government to states, cities, and the
private sector. A change like this could radically shift how or whether property
owners invest in preparedness upfront.
The cost/benefit analysis of extreme weather events to the real estate industry
is changing, both due to these potential policy shifts and the frequent extreme
weather events that have damaged property and disrupted business continuity.
7Accurately Price the Cost of Inaction
Recent extreme weather events suggest that the costs of not
investing in resilience and risk reduction are dramatically increasing.
Damages observed after the 2013 floods in
northern Colorado.
BETH SILVERMAN/ULI, NORTHERN COLORADO: ESTES PARK,
LOVELAND, AND FORT COLLINS (2014)
BETH SILVERMAN/ULI, NORTHERN COLORADO: ESTES PARK,
LOVELAND, AND FORT COLLINS (2014)
BETH SILVERMAN/ULI, NORTHERN COLORADO: ESTES PARK,
LOVELAND, AND FORT COLLINS (2014)
27
Forward-thinking developers, insurers, policy makers, and the real estate finance
community are beginning to recognize that preventative strategies to mitigate the
risk of extreme events make business sense, and are incorporating risk into their
cost/benefit analyses. For example:
Because insurers often have the longest-term interest in effectively pricing risk,
this industry is likely to lead the way. More insurers are refusing to issue cover-
age in expanding “high risk” areas prone to frequent flooding and in some cases
potential sea-level rise. Insurers are also starting to incentivize preparation and
mitigation for extreme events—this has started through earthquake standards,
such as REDi, that address earthquake preparedness. Retail policy adjustments
also could reward developments that mitigate flooding risks. As the insurance
industry increasingly offers meaningful discounts in premiums or a greater level of
coverage for real estate assets that take specific steps to improve their resilience,
these mitigation and adaptation strategies will see greater adoption across the
real estate industry.
Capital markets may soon also price risk better, possibly by offering more favor-
able bond pricing to cities and developers integrating resilience strategies into
their projects, or better mortgage terms for buildings that are better prepared for
extreme weather events. In December 2017, Moody’s Investors Service released
a report indicating that future credit rating assessments will consider cities’
preparedness for climate change, and adaptation and mitigation actions.
xix
The
emergence of “resilience bonds” and environmental bonds targeting projects with
resilience co-benefits suggests that capital markets are developing a more refined
pricing approach to resilience.
Local governments may create increasingly favorable development conditions—
whether through policies or incentives such as density bonuses—for real estate
projects incorporating resilience and minimizing the risk to future occupants. Gov-
ernment investment in resilient infrastructure can also affect future development
patterns, with developers leveraging these public investments.
While developers and owners may have shorter investment time horizons, price
signals from the insurance industry and capital markets, and incentives from local
governments will strengthen the business case for resilience investments and help
drive uptake from the development community. Longer-term real estate owners,
such as institutional investors and mortgage lenders, may drive this.
As tenants and property buyers get better information on risks that climate-
vulnerable properties face and value the prospects of enhanced security, reduced
losses, and enhanced business continuity, they will begin moving to more resilient
properties. This preference for resilient buildings would deliver a clear market
signal through increased rents and decreased vacancy rates.
The 2014 Flood Insurance Rate Map shows
much of the study area in Fort Norfolk, Virginia,
exposed to a 1 percent annual chance of flood in
blue (top). However, the current Flood Insurance
Rate Map shows even more land exposed to
flood risk in light green (bottom).
CITY OF N ORFOLK, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA (2014) CITY OF N ORFOLK, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA (2014)
2014
2017
28
and use patterns developed over time as people settled along coastlines,
rivers, and fertile lands where resources were rich, commerce was vibrant,
and the climate was stable. However, many of the resources that attracted people
initially and supported communities for centuries have become threats in the era
of climate change. As the air warms, seas rise, and storms become more intense,
climate change generally intensifies existing regional conditions. Dry regions
become drier, hot regions become hotter, and wet regions become wetter. These
exacerbations emphasize how important it is to embrace the natural conditions
and flows of a site, community, and region and to design accordingly.
Fifty years ago, in his book
Design with Nature
, landscape architect Ian McHarg
popularized the concept of embracing ecological function to create beautiful
and resource-efficient environments. Planning and designing in concert with
nature not only builds for resilience, but also provides amenities for communities
and value for investors in development. Parks, green spaces, and stormwater
management features can enrich the quality of a development or neighborhood,
and potentially enhance resilience, community cohesion, and public health. The
quality of concept, design, and execution of these resilient solutions is essential to
creating their shared value.
Designing with natural systems should entail looking beyond municipal or site
territories to address the geography of the site in a holistic way. It is also critical to
understand the history of natural systems, resources, and use of the site, particu-
larly considering natural resources that may have been ignored or squandered in
recent years. While jurisdictional or site boundaries sometimes follow geographic
boundaries such as rivers or coasts, in other cases they ignore natural systems,
such as flood basins. Flooding, heat, and the other cascading impacts of climate
change will not respect jurisdictional boundaries.
Accordingly, resilient development and land use policies identify ways to build
from natural systems, whether at the site, block, neighborhood, city, or regional
scale. Natural systems that could feature, depending on the context and climate
conditions of the area, include:
Green infrastructure, such as rain gardens, constructed wetlands, and bio-
swales;
Native landscaping, including drought-tolerant plantings;
Natural coastal and riparian systems, such as mangroves and oyster habitats,
and the restoration of degraded coastal, bayou, marshland, or riverine natural
habitats; and
Flood mitigation infrastructure designed to address risk beyond the boundaries
of a site.
8Design with Natural Systems
Designing resilience relies upon an understanding of the function
and geography of natural systems and how they can help strengthen
manmade systems and communities.
Nature does not respect the borders that humans
have placed on the landscape, whether these
boundaries are jurisdictional or physical. Strate-
gies for implementing resilient land use, develop-
ment, and infrastructure projects across boundar-
ies at different scales include the following:
Regional scale: Create a collaborative resil-
ience consortium including local counties and
municipalities. Determine the scientific consensus
on regional climate change hazards, assess the
vulnerability of current and planned assets, and
determine the potential for regional solutions,
including investments in infrastructure and
coordinated policy approaches. Regularly solicit
input from the local business and residential com-
munities, as well as other stakeholders. A regional
group will have the unique ability to understand
the economic value that infrastructural solutions
would protect and establish the likely costs, and
how to identify funding. The Southeast Florida
Climate Change Compact provides one excellent
example of this type of regional collaboration.xxiv
City scale: Assess the vulnerability and associ-
ated risks from the range of impacts from climate
change throughout the municipality. Implement
zoning, hazard mitigation, and other policies to
address these risks comprehensively. Consider the
range of natural conditions across the city, includ-
ing flood elevations and vulnerability to flooding,
storm surge, and extreme heat. Plan for infrastruc-
ture improvements and protections that are built
on the understanding of the natural systems and
forces at work, including an integrated approach to
green and gray infrastructure.
Neighborhood scale: To consider resilience at
the neighborhood scale, planning should address
both physical vulnerabilities and assets, and the
supporting social and civic networks. Social con-
nections and the shared use of commercial and
civic facilities bind a neighborhood together, in
daily life and during peak or extreme events.
Addressing Resilient Design
and Natural Systems at
Different Scales
29
ULI Boston’s Living with Water report and workshop envisioned
the Harborwalk in Dune Park, Boston, with a dynamic natural
landscape, which assumes daily tidal fluctuations and the onset
of rising water levels. The design includes gradually increasing
aquatic vegetation, which allows the “occupiable sea wall” to
protect against rising sea levels and storm surges while creating
a public recreation space.
ARROWS TREET AND H ALVORSON DESI GN PARTNERSH IP, THE URBAN
IMPLICATIONS OF LIVING WITH WATER (2014)
Designing for Natural Hazards
Thoughtful approaches to site selection, density and building massing, sustainable
technologies, and architectural design can address the risks arising from natural
hazards and the impacts of climate change.
Sea-level rise and storm surge: Developments in areas vulnerable to sea-level
rise should not only ensure preparedness for rising water levels but also consider
peak and storm surge conditions. Practically, this should entail thoughtful site
selection, design above FEMA base elevation requirements, preparedness at the
building level, and inclusion of stormwater management systems to handle water
during peak and routine events. First and foremost, placement of buildings on
waterfront sites must be carefully considered, given the likelihood of inundation
within the development project’s lifetime, or even the initial mortgage cycle.
Buildings close to the waterfront should then be prepared to “get wet,” with
mechanical elements elevated out of harm’s way and entryways and frontage that
will remain accessible for the long term. In the public realm, green infrastructure
and stormwater management mechanisms such as bioswales, rain gardens, and
green roofs can both improve the quality of the outdoor environment and help slow
water during rain events.
Riverine flooding: Many cities are situated on historic commerce hubs along
major rivers and waterways, putting development at risk of flooding after significant
rain events. Like properties in areas vulnerable to sea-level rise and storm surge,
riverfront development should be designed to be prepared for rising water levels,
which would affect building placement, location of mechanicals, and elements of
the public realm.
Heat
:
Urban areas experience elevated temperatures compared with their surround-
ing areas due to the paved surfaces, loss of vegetation, and waste heat emitted from
buildings and vehicles. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
Heat Island Compendium, the annual mean temperature of a cit y of 1 million or more
can be 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit more than its immediate surroundings, with dif-
ferences of up to 22 degrees Fahrenheit on a clear evening.xx Designing to address
increased heat can include the use of green and blue roofs, reflective surfaces, and
increased vegetative cover. Many of these strategies are increasingly incentivized or
required in cities struggling with water management and rising temperatures.
Wind: Hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme events put buildings and people
in harm’s way due to peak wind conditions. During high-wind events, each structure
experiences a different level of risk due to its unique shape, location, and strength.
Particularly in urban areas, wind will flow around buildings, causing different pres-
sures and impacts on other developments and pedestrian comfort and safety. De-
signs that are intended to build up massing minimize these micro-climate impacts.
Numerous hurricane-prone municipalities release design guidelines and codes
addressing wind pressure, such as Miami–Dade County. Design standards such as
Fortified also propose strategies to protect roofs and building enclosures, such as
doors and windows, as well as strengthen buildings’ continuous load path.xxi
Drought: Development in drought-prone areas requires a focus on water conscious-
ness and efficiency. In addition to concerns about water availability, hard-packed
soil in these areas can lead to its inability to absorb water, increasing the likelihood
of flash flooding. Resilient design strategies could incorporate rainwater harvesting
and recycling systems to capture precipitation during infrequent weather events,
conserving this limited resource. Equally important to design is behavior change; the
American Society of Landscape Architects notes that “communities can spur needed
changes in behavior, encouraging greater conservation through smart regulations.”xxii
Wildfire: Wildfire suppression and protection costs have tripled in the United
States since the 1990s, recently surpassing $3 billion annually, due to rising
temperatures, reduced moisture in the air, and development in areas where fire
is a risk and a “natural part of the ecosystem.”xxiii The 2017 California wildfires,
including fires in Sonoma, Napa, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties, among
others, caused extensive damage and drew national attention to this risk. Land use
and smart land management is critical to decreasing wildfire risk; some areas may
not be suitable to development due to fire risk and the likely costs of rebuilding.
For developments in areas with some wildfire vulnerability, built areas should be
designed to avoid wind corridors and to remain separated from fuel sources, like
cars. Building material decisions can be made with an eye toward reducing wildfire
risk; for example, roofing made of noncombustible materials, such as clay or tile,
will also deter building ignition. Site design and landscape planning also should
consider this vulnerability, ensuring access to water and keeping spaces between
structures and any combustible debris, tall grasses, and trees.
30
Lafayette, Louisiana, currently
has a number of concrete-
based coulees (above) through-
out the city, which are designed
to move water quickly and can
exacerbate flooding conditions.
ULI panelists recommended
converting a coulee into an
attractive green corridor (right),
to continue to manage flooding
while creating a recreational
space that would enhance local
quality of life.
Climate risks and vulnerabilities are an important frame for work with natural sys-
tems, particularly given that the impact of natural disasters can be exacerbated
by climate change. Project design should consider the climate change projec-
tions for the lifetime of the development considered, or, at the very least, for the
initial mortgage cycle.
Managing water, particularly during peak conditions, presents a primary concern
and opportunity for incorporation of natural systems. The need for new develop-
ment to better manage water is twofold: On one hand, development over time has
intensified rainwater runoff in watersheds through paving and building construc-
tion. On the other hand, storm intensity in many areas is increasing from climate
change. Incorporating natural systems can address both of these factors, and as
a result, will build resilience when implemented in conjunction with bigger-picture
land use strategies.
KATHA RINE BURGESS /ULI, DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA (2017)SUKIRTI G HOSH/ULI , DOWNTOWN LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA (2017 )
31
On Site with Advisory Services: Duluth, Minnesota
Context and assignment: Straddling the shores of Lake Superior for 26 miles
(42 km), Duluth has tremendous natural resources. More than 47 creeks run down
from the top of the bluffs, often dropping more than 650 feet (198 m) in less than a
mile (1.6 km), into the St. Louis River and Lake Superior.
In June 2012, between eight to ten inches (20 to 25 cm) of rain fell, causing severe
riverine and flash flooding. Within the Lincoln Park neighborhood, Miller Creek
overflowed into homes and turned the steep streets into rivers. The ULI panel, hosted in
2015, focused on how to build resilience, decrease flood risk, invest in infrastructure,
and apply lessons learned beyond this watershed. The panel also coincided with the
development of the local application for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s National Disaster Resilience Competition.
Key finding: Duluth’s complex geography and geology, including steep, rocky slopes
and poor soils, can make for difficult building and transportation conditions. The auto-
centric, suburban development patterns of Duluth and adjacent counties had also led
to the destruction of the natural wetlands at the top of the bluff, contributing to the flash
flooding along with the channelization of the creek. In contrast, the panel proposed
flood mitigation strategies that would build from the city’s natural systems, including
its network of creeks and waterways.
Strategies and tools: ULI’s panel focused on mitigation in the Miller Creek
watershed, recommending the following strategies to design with nature in mind and
enhance resilience:
Enhance and reforest the headwaters east of the airport.
The headwaters of
streams are the most fragile portions of the entire stream system. Protecting the
headwaters should be a priority and could be done by planting additional trees
to protect the stream, providing cover for the stream from solar exposure, and
providing for quantity and quality control of the water.
Improve the affected stream valley.
Relocated and channeled stream segments
and denuded stream banks along with eroded side slopes are just some of the re-
sults occurring in the affected stream valley. Variable stream valley buffers should
be applied to all portions of the creek that have not yet been developed.
Rechannel the streams.
Streams that have been channeled have diminished
natural capacity to store and infiltrate water, to absorb storm flows, and to provide
habitat for wildlife. Such a restoration will return the natural sinuosity of the creek
and will improve the creek’s ability to absorb and detain storm flows.
Reduce the effect of large impervious areas on roofs and parking lots.
The panel
recommends against overbuilding parking lots and roadways, and calls for
constructing multistory buildings on reduced footprints instead of large single-
story buildings. Bioswales, enhanced tree grates, and subsurface water storage
also should be added wherever possible to infiltrate water to improve its quality
and quantity.
Remove built choke points.
Multiple choke points in the form of culverts restrict
the flow of stormwater during heavy rainstorms. These culverts should be
replaced with either a larger culvert or, preferably, a bridge that would reduce or
eliminate the constriction and allow fish to move unimpeded through streams.
Incorporate complete reconstruction of Miller Creek from Second Street to be-
yond Michigan Street.
Miller Creek can be daylighted down to the lake to provide
a water amenity throughout the Lincoln Park neighborhood, to increase property
value, and to provide another avenue for piping out stormwater.
After looking at a series of design options for Miller Creek, the panel recommended implementing a hybrid open channel and a natural stream
design because it minimally affects adjacent private properties, adds aesthetic and functional value, and safely conveys the flow of water.
DANIEL AN DERTON/ ULI, DULUT H, MI NNES OTA (2015)
32
o-benefits, which can include social, environmental, and economic out-
comes, define resilient investments. Physical infrastructure intended to
protect a community from hazards should both strengthen a community against
potential shocks and contribute to addressing stresses, enhancing a community’s
environmental performance, economic development potential, or social cohesion.
For example, a riverfront park designed to incorporate flood storage offers far
greater chances for public benefits such as enhanced recreation, public health,
and green space than gray infrastructure investments like sea walls.
Opportunities to build resilience and achieve co-benefits such as improved qual-
ity of life, public health, open space, and environmental justice often exist within
the scope of an existing capital improvement program. For example, infrastruc-
tural investments addressing water treatment and street capacity have the op-
portunity to also build resilience and provide other meaningful environmental and
social benefits.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Rebuild by Design
competition after Sandy sought to identify infrastructural investments with the
capacity for both better protecting the New York metropolitan area and providing
co-benefits. These major projects in the Sandy-impacted region, which received
$920 million in financial support, would not only mitigate against future extreme
events but also improve “physical, ecological, and economic resilience.”xxv One
winning project included berms and marshland restorations that would both
protect against ocean surge, improve water quality, and create new recreational
zones. Another proposed flood protection system would double as public ameni-
ties along an underused waterfront.
9Maximize Co-benets
Risk reduction initiatives and infrastructure can include
elements that enhance quality of life and economic
development potential.
Examples of Co-benefits
Co-benefits that can be derived from resilient
infrastructure projects include improvements in
the following:
Public health
Quality of life
Access to green space and recreation
Placemaking
Improved air quality
Improved water quality
Ecosystem services
Transportation capacity
Economic development
Tax revenue generation
Job creation.
In Seattle, the ULI panel recommended altering the residential area in the South Park neighborhood to include a soccer field, which not only
is a neighborhood amenity, but also acts as a flood protection buffer between the Duwamish River and the neighborhood.
ANGELO C ARUSI/ULI , SEATTLE , WASHINGTON (2 015)
BING MAP S
33
To maximize the opportunity to identify co-benefits, plan-
ning and design processes should seek input from multiple
sources to understand local needs and the interactions
among systems and the people they support. This input
should then find opportunities for infrastructure, develop-
ment, or policies to enhance social, environmental, and
economic outcomes. Establishing opportunities to achieve
co-benefits is particularly critical for projects located in
under-resourced communities.
Identifying potential co-benefits that respond to a commu-
nity’s needs requires interdisciplinary thinking and a com-
mitment from the beginning of project planning. The design
process should not only work across different agencies but
also seek input from the community members involved, and
others outside of the land use and policy fields to under-
stand the interactions among systems and the people they
serve. Working with the relevant local communities is the
most critical aspect of the process, and should have the
bonus of raising awareness about municipal investments
and resources.
Local governments may require more collaborative ap-
proaches to deliver these types of projects, particularly
if they require interagency financial contributions and an
integrated consultation process. Launching early infrastruc-
tural investments as pilot projects may provide opportunities
to prototype new approaches and assess outcomes before
establishing new municipal processes and funding streams.
On Site with Advisory Services: El Paso, Texas
Context and assignment: ULI’s panel in El Paso, Texas, proposed a resilient land
use strategy for a new active transportation system (ATS), a citywide cyclist and pe-
destrian network funded by the El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Co-benefits were a primary focus for the panel: by taking a resilient design approach,
the ATS could ultimately accomplish more than its transportation-related goals.
Key finding: A resilient ATS would not only be an attractive, convenient place for
biking and walking, but also:
Address local climate risks such as extreme heat and flash flooding;
Connect residents with jobs and present new economic development opportunities;
Provide community-building opportunities in an underserved neighborhood;
Improve public health; and
Provide new recreational opportunities and enhance quality of life.
Accordingly, the panel developed a proposal for the design, planning, and delivery
of an ATS that would seek to accomplish the above goals through design and an
integrated planning process. The outcome is an example of a resilient development
project not only because of its integration of climate concerns but also because of
the process to engage a range of stakeholders and build from the strengths of the
local community.
The ATS also presented an interesting opportunity for co-benefits due to the
proposed location for the network, along a dis-used and abandoned irrigation canal,
directly adjacent to two local Housing Authority sites under redevelopment. This
location offered opportunities to leverage an existing asset—a previously attractive
canal and path—and to increase community access by integrating trail design into
site planning for the adjacent Housing Authority sites. The panel’s final recommenda-
tions encouraged the MPO not only to plan for the ATS, but also to integrate the ATS
plans into strategies for Housing Authority site redevelopment and for addressing local
land contamination. Incorporating these adjacent sites and involving these different
agencies and stakeholders would help the MPO better identify potential co-benefits
and create a facility likely to provide the greatest value for the local communities.
El Paso’s Franklin Canal (top) is largely inaccessible at present,
although it offers a potentially convenient route between two employ-
ment hubs and borders two multifamily housing developments that
could benefit from green space. A resilient active transportation
system (above) would not only provide a trail, but also connect the
two housing developments, offering amenities such as attractive land-
scaping, community art, and water management features potentially
using reclaimed water for recreational use.
KATHA RINE BURGESS /ULI, ACT IVE TRANS PORTATION SYS TEM,
EL PASO, TE XAS (2016)
CARLOS P EREZ/U LI, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, EL PASO, TEXAS (2016)
34
esilience refers to the ability to anticipate and be ready for change. Change
is a result of a broad range of shocks and stresses that communities face,
but also occurs as promising new technologies are created and deployed.
Among them will be technologies related to:
Innovations are particularly important to cities seeking to optimize municipal ser-
vices and understand real-time needs during peak events. Open data and tech-
nology make information more easily available and actionable for users including
municipal governments, corporations, enterprises, communities, and individuals.
For example, technologies such as off-grid power, district energy, and demand-
response electricity management have an important role to play in the response
period after sudden shocks. By creating efficient redundancies, these technolo-
gies can improve the likelihood of security and business continuity after a major
event, also presenting opportunities to conserve resources and reduce costs and
environmental impact along the way.
Open data and technology will soon offer more accurate predictions about when
extreme events could occur, and mapping of the areas likely to be affected.
These innovations also provide opportunities to better understand resource needs
and leverage third-party input on a day-to-day basis as well as during peak
events. These technologies will become increasingly important tools for cities,
businesses, institutions, and others to be more resource-efficient and responsive
to changed circumstances and needs of their users.
As the nature of work changes with the onset of globalization and changing
technologies, cities that have been more proactive and responsive to change will
also offer the most opportunities for their residents. For example, the increasing
prevalence of the shared economy as relevant to transportation, housing, and
logistics has introduced many opportunities for investment and efficient use of
resources. Many of these innovations are directly relevant to resilience, such
as opportunities for decreased emissions through reduced car use and flexible
approaches to housing, transportation, and other services after peak events.
Cities that have not proactively recognized these opportunities and implemented
relevant policies or incentives have missed out on opportunities to grow this
sector in their local markets, providing consumers with value and services they
have come to expect, and local workers with opportunities for skills development.
Harness Innovation and Technology
Innovation related to the infrastructure, mobility, and data
and information tracking can improve response to crisis and
strengthen resilience for the long term.
10
On Site with Advisory
Services: Waterfronts
of Portland and South
Portland, Maine
Context and assignment: In 2014, the cities of
Portland and South Portland invited ULI to advise
them on how to be prepared for the impacts of
climate change, including as relevant to historic
preservation, economic development, land use
planning, and risk mitigation.
Key finding: Alongside addressing land use
issues, the panel explored how the cities could
better manage data related to climate change and
coastal risk. The panel noted the challenges related
to both data management and communicating
about potential policy implications to the public
and individual constituencies. In response,
the panel proposed a shared-governance
strategy around sea-level-rise data, including
separate groups managing data collection and
dissemination.
Strategy and tools: Panelists proposed creating
a risk data group charged with obtaining data on
sea-level rise and climate impacts, and acting
as a clearinghouse for information for local
municipalities, businesses, and the community.
A second data group would then be charged with
developing models to incorporate these data into
municipal decision making.
Renewable energy
District-scale utilities
On-demand transportation
Climate change preparedness
Communications
Public health
Open data sharing, sensors, and
real-time information tracking
Enhanced project delivery and
performance measurement
Dynamic logistics for delivery of
goods and supplies.
35
Strategies for cities to stimulate growth and investment in new technologies
and emerging industries could include the following:
Taking steps to recruit and support businesses of the future, through
incentives, subsidies, and cultivation of an economic ecosystem and a
supportive environment for new businesses and entrepreneurs;
Implementing incentives for private sector and real estate sector
implementation of technologies related to resilience, climate adaptation, and
mitigation, including clean technologies; and
Investing in a variety of education and training opportunities for all age groups
to support the changing skill sets needed.
Resilience and climate adaptation technologies also offer economic
development and investment opportunities. As a result, numerous
communities are currently positioning themselves to attract and retain
industries related to resilience and climate change, in hopes of establishing
industry clusters including innovation, knowledge generation, and
service providers. Potential areas of growth include the construction
and maintenance of green infrastructure, renewable energy and clean
technologies, and technologies relevant to sea-level rise and coastal
construction mitigation. These industries offer the potential for job
opportunities in research and development as well as systems deployment
and maintenance.
Innovation districts focused on resilient technologies could be physically
centered on the mitigation technologies addressing their local sites’
vulnerabilities. For example, a waterfront resilience innovation district could
include the investments in green infrastructure and coastal construction mitigation
that would make the site more secure and appropriate for long-term mixed-use or
commercial development.
The Trust for Public Land’s Climate-Smart Cities
tool, pictured here for New Orleans, helps deci-
sion makers identify key locations for green in-
frastructure installation based on environmental
vulnerabilities. ULI Boston is collaborating with
the Trust for Public Land to add an additional
layer of data points to the tool to support the real
estate industry’s need to evaluate points of inter-
est at the parcel level.
THE TRUS T FOR PUBLIC L AND’S CLIM ATE-SMART
CITIESTM PROGRAM, REALIZING RESILIENCE (2016)
On Site with Advisory Services: Norfolk, Virginia
Context and assignment: ULI’s panel in Norfolk developed a strategy for a
waterfront site and proposed broader strategies for the city’s land use, real estate, and
economic development efforts given the city’s vulnerability to sea-level rise.
Key finding: Given Norfolk’s well-known vulnerability to sea-level rise, the panel
recommended “flipping” this and instead cultivating the image and knowledge that
the city is prepared for the risks it faces. Technologies related to climate adaptation
and sea-level rise are an important opportunity area, and should be a cluster that the
city actively pursues as it seeks to diversify its economy.
Strategy and tools: The panel proposed the establishment of a Coastal Urban
Resilience Venture Enterprise, or CURVE. CURVE would build from the work already
done by partners in the region, such as Old Dominion University and the U.S. Navy.
The panel proposed the study area waterfront site as a potential physical location for
a CURVE innovation center, which would be a testing ground for new technologies.
Such a center could ultimately lead to the development of a local cottage industry
in Norfolk for businesses related to resilience, risk transfer, and floodproofing, an
opportunity already aligned with the workforce in the region.
36
Conclusion
he devastation wrought by hurricanes Katrina, Harvey, Irma, and Maria and
the recent California wildfires drew international attention to the vulnerability of
cities and the need for more resilient land use and development. Today, city lead-
ers are increasingly focused on how to prepare and plan for, withstand, recover
from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. Equally important is ad-
dressing the stresses that affect both daily life and the ability to recover from peak
events. For example, the stresses arising from the impacts of climate change,
such as increased heat and sea-level rise, will have serious consequences for
cities and affect public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity.
Building resilience entails identifying these
vulnerabilities and proactively addressing them,
considering environmental, social, and economic
factors. This Ten Principles report introduces these
many components of resilience, including factors
relevant to housing, social equity, land use, finance,
design, and other topics. These principles offer
a framework that decision makers can use when
exploring how to enhance resilience at the city,
district, or neighborhood scale, and what roles the
land use, real estate development, and community
sectors can play. Many of these principles also apply
when considering how to enhance building- or asset-
level resilience at the site scale.
Ultimately, investing in resilience should not only reduce risk from peak events,
but also introduce strategies for improved environmental performance, economic
development, and social cohesion. The cities profiled in this Ten Principles
report sought ULI input on how to reduce their vulnerabilities and enhance
resilience. The proposed infrastructural investments, building design best
practices, and policy approaches also introduced other opportunities to thrive,
whether by creating multifunctional green spaces, developing a more vibrant
downtown, or investing in new sectors for economic development. Real estate
projects that have incorporated resilient design at the building scale have also
seen demonstrable returns on investment, as well as opportunities to enhance
business continuity and improve building user experience.
ULI’s recent reports addressing resilience topics, which are listed at right, share
these examples of best practices in building resilience from cities, communities,
and real estate projects. Over the upcoming years, ULI’s Urban Resilience
program will continue this work. To learn more about this work, identify ways to
get involved, or request technical assistance for your community, visit https://
americas.uli.org/resilience.
Resilience can entail reenvision-
ing the use of existing assets.
For example, ULI Boston’s
Living with Water workshop
imagined Back Bay streets
transformed into canals to
enhance preparedness for
sea-level rise.
MICHAE L WANG, ARLEN S TAWASZ, AND DE NNIS CARLBE RG, THE URBAN IMPLICATIONS OF
LIVING WITH WATER (2014)
37
ULI Resilience Resources
Advisory Services Panels
The Urban Land Institute has run many resilience-focused Advisory Services panels and Technical
Assistance Program panels since the establishment of the Urban Resilience program in 2014, including
the projects below and others. This Ten Principles report analyzed the following panels, alongside other
recent district council projects and research projects:
Active Transportation System, El Paso, Texas: Downtown –Chamizal–Medical Center.
Considering an arid and drought-prone climate, the El Paso Advisory Services Panel explored how a new
active transportation system (ATS) could serve as a model for resilience planning. The panelists identified
a site for a future ATS route, creating concepts for the reuse of an abandoned canal and proposing design
approaches that would integrate the trail with adjacent affordable housing redevelopments.
After Sandy: Advancing Strategies for Long-Term Resilience and Adaptability. This post-
Sandy panel brought together a large team of ULI members to develop strategies for long-term resilience
and adaptability in the New York City region. Tasked with a remit broader than that of a “typical” Advisory
Services panel, the group visited sites across New York and New Jersey and developed recommendations
applicable to the region, rather than exploring resilient land use strategies for a single site.
Anchorage, Alaska. ULI and the National League of Cities’ Rose Center for Public Leadership hosted a
three-day study visit to explore how two neighborhoods—Mountain View, the most ethnically diverse zip
code in America with significant communities of refugees, and Muldoon, a redeveloping neighborhood
with a recent investment stormwater infrastructure—could be developed as pilot “resilience districts.”
The panel considered how to engage the members of these communities and what resilience could mean
to two urban areas in Alaska, addressing land use, design, community facilities, energy, and housing.
Arch Creek Basin, Miami–Dade County, Florida: Addressing Climate Vulnerabilities and
Social Equity with an Adaptation Action Area Framework. The Arch Creek Basin panel focused
on a 2,800-acre (1,133 ha) multijurisdictional site that functions as a flood basin, and which includes both
a future rail line and low-lying areas whose residents have applied for FEMA buyouts due to repetitive
flooding losses. The panel developed a long-term vision to create a high-density TOD, including afford-
able relocation housing, as well as new green infrastructure and park space in the low-lying areas.
Downtown Lafayette, Louisiana: Strategies for Resilient Land Use, Development, and
Implementation. This panel explored resilient land use strategies, with a focus on short- and long-
term downtown redevelopment approaches. The panel recommended encouraging catalytic mixed-use
and residential projects in Lafayette’s urban core and identified financing vehicles to support a vibrant
and ultimately more resilient downtown, in light of a major rain event in 2016 that caused extensive
damage and flooding. The panel also recommended implementing green infrastructure projects, updating
development-related standards with green practices, and implementing a stormwater utility fee.
Duluth, Minnesota: Strategic Advice for Lincoln Park and the Miller Creek Watershed.
Having experienced riverine and flash flooding due to an extreme rain event in 2012, the city of Duluth
sought land use strategies that would make the city less prone to flooding while also improving down-
stream water quality, economic opportunity, and quality of life. The panel recommended enhancing
stormwater management and watershed planning initiatives, government and community programming,
as well as implementing districts that foster economic growth.
Northern Colorado, Estes Park, Fort Collins, and Loveland: Connected Systems,
Connected Futures: Building for Resilience and Prosperity. Larimer County, located north of
Denver, sought regional resilience strategies from the panel considering risk of natural disasters like ex-
treme flooding. The panel recommended coordinating regional economic plans in line with updated flood-
plain and natural landscape maps and strengthening communication systems to foster public awareness.
38
Returns on Resilience
THE BUSINESS CASE
JANUARY 2018
GOWANUS, BROOKLYN
A Vision for a Greener,
Healthier, Cooler Gowanus:
Strategies to Mitigate
Urban Heat Island Eect
Norfolk, Virginia: Assessing Risk and Protecting Value. A ULI panel was invited to Norfolk, one
of the U.S. cities most at risk of sea-level rise and subsidence, to assess the market value and potential of
the Fort Norfolk study area and consider how to assess environmental risks and protect the study area’s
value, while creating a more vibrant and livable community for its residents.
Seattle, Washington: Strategic Advice for Urban Resilience on the Lower Duwamish
Rive r. Georgetown and South Park are two coastal neighborhoods in Seattle that are extremely diverse
and home to both low-income communities and industrial development. The panel was tasked with
providing recommendations for enhancing the resilience of these neighborhoods to sea-level rise and
increasing stormwater, while also addressing economic challenges associated with physical connectivity,
socially disadvantaged populations, and encroaching land use changes.
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana: Bridging the Divide with the South Central Study Area
through Resilience. St. Tammany Parish experienced a sudden influx of residents and businesses
following Hurricane Katrina, in addition to the impacts of four major hurricanes and the BP oil spill. The
parish requested that the panel assess the parish’s local resilience philosophy and explore how projected
growth should could occur within the panel’s study area, a predominantly vacant, flat, and low-lying site.
The panel recommended that the parish use the site as a pilot area for more resilient land use patterns,
encouraging the development of a range of housing choices and public transportation.
Waterfronts of Portland and South Portland, Maine: Regional Strategies for Creating
Resilient Waterfronts. The panel explored the opportunities for the waterfronts of Portland and South
Portland and outlined dilemmas facing the two waterfronts that largely suppor t commercial vessels and
institutional land uses. The recommendations focused on addressing risks from sea-level rise and storm
surge, in the context of historic preservation, economic development, and land use planning.
Technical Assistance Program Panels and District Council Projects
A Vision for a Greener, Healthier, Cooler Gowanus: Strategies to Mitigate Urban Heat Island
Effect. ULI New York partnered with the Urban Resilience program and south Brooklyn community-based
nonprofit and advocacy group, the Fifth Avenue Committee, to explore how a potential rezoning in the
Gowanus neighborhood, which was developed as an industrial area and was New York City’s first Superfund
site, could address urban heat island mitigation.
Realizing Resilience: Social Equity and Economic Opportunity, St. Petersburg, Florida. ULI’s
Tampa Bay District Council partnered with the Urban Resilience program and the city of St. Petersburg to
host a workshop to inform the city’s plan to address climate change. The workshop primarily focused on
economic development and social equity in the face of environmental vulnerabilities.
The Urban Implications of Living with Water. This report, which was developed through a charrette
hosted by ULI Boston, looked at resilience solutions for four neighborhoods in the Boston region, envision-
ing how their built environments could adapt to sea-level rise. The East Boston TAP report, Advancing
Resiliency in East Boston, also addressed sea-level rise and other resilience issues.
Other Urban Resilience Program Resources
Harvesting the Value of Water: Stormwater, Green Infrastructure, and Real Estate. This
report explores the real estate sector’s increased participation in stormwater management through the in-
corporation of green infrastructure and other water management mechanisms. Highlighting a series of case
studies, the report provides an overview of how stormwater management can introduce operational efficien-
cies, improve building user experience, enhance aesthetics, and otherwise differentiate a real estate project.
Returns on Resilience: The Business Case. This report showcases real estate developments that
exhibit best practices in resilient design and have experienced positive financial, operational, and other
business outcomes.
39
Michael Terseck
Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative Officer
Cheryl Cummins
Global Governance Officer
Ralph Boyd
Chief Executive Officer, ULI Americas
Lisette van Doorn
Chief Executive Officer, ULI Europe
John Fitzgerald
Chief Executive Officer, ULI Asia Pacific
Adam Smolyar
Chief Marketing and Membership Officer
Stockton Williams
Executive Vice President, Content
Executive Director, ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing
Steve Ridd
Executive Vice President, Global Business Operations
ULI Team
Paul Angelone
Director, Advisory Services
Gideon Berger
Program Director, Daniel Rose Fellowship
Rose Center for Public Leadership in Land Use
Betsy Van Buskirk
Creative Director
Craig Chapman
Senior Director, Publishing Operations
Tom Eitler
Senior Vice President, Advisory Services
Calvin Gladney
Senior Visiting Fellow for Equity
Billy Grayson
Executive Director, Center for Sustainability and
Economic Performance
Steven Gu
Associate, Education and Advisory Group
Rose Kim
Senior Director, Special Events
Rachel MacCleery
Senior Vice President, Content
Anne Morgan
Lead Graphic Designer
James A. Mulligan
Senior Editor
Matt Norris
Senior Manager, Content
Jessica Rodgers
Department Coordinator, Executive Office
David James Rose
Manuscript Editor
Beth Silverman
Senior Director, Advisory Services
Reema Singh
Senior Associate, Content
Jess Zimbabwe
Director of Urban Development and Leadership,
Rose Center for Public Leadership in Land Use
Global and Americas ULI Senior
Executives
ULI Project Staff
40
i. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2 014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II, and III to the Fif th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)].
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp, page 4.
ii. J. Walsh, D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K . Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R.
Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin,
T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville. “Chapter 2: Our
Changing Climate.” Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National
Climate Assessment, J.M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds.
Washington, DC: Global Change Research Program, 2014, 19–67. doi:10.7930/
J0KW5CXT. Page 20.
iii. Ibid., 21.
iv. “Landmark at Risk: Prote cting the Historic Sea port of Annapolis, Maryland.” City of
Annapolis. La st accessed January 2018. https://arcg.is /1STeHf.
v. J. Walsh, D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R.
Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin,
T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville. “Chapter 2: Our
Changing Climate.” Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National
Climate Assessment, J.M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds.
Washington, DC: Global Change Research Program, 2014, 19–67. doi:10.7930/
J0KW5CXT. Page 20.
vi. Ibid.
vii. “Signatories; We Are Still In Declaration.” Last accessed December 2017. https://
www.wearestillin.com/we-are -still-declaration.
viii. Jennifer Weeks, “ Whatever You Call It, Se a Level Rises in Virginia.” Scientific
American. August 21, 2012. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whatever-
you-call-it-sea-level-rises-in-virginia/.
ix. Zillow. 40 Rader St APT 4 02, Norfolk, VA 23510. Zillow, n.d.https://www.zillow.
com/homes/recently_sold/0_fr/0_fs/36.854688,-76.298791,36.850713,-
76.302342_rect/X1-SSrhznep8guknf_2ghte_sse/79213650_
zpid/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=emo-
instantsearch-cta-2btn&utm_content=foreclosureaddress&rtoken=9
df43205-1d2d-4b59-a206-11d4c632b0e5~X1-ZUz76gzejz4idl_1hdln&3col=true.
x. Henry, David, Sandra Cook-Hull, Jacqueline Savukinas, Fenwick Yu, Nicholas Elo,
Bradford Van Arnum. Economic Impact of Hurricane Sandy: Potential Economic
Activity Lost and Gained in New Jersey and New York. Washington, DC: U.S. Depar t-
ment of Commerce, Economics and St atistics Administration, Department of
Commerce, 2013, page vi.
xi. Charette, Allison, Chris Herbert, Andrew Jak abovics, Ellen Tracy Mar ya, Daniel
McCue. Projecting Trends in Severely Cost-Burdened Renters: 2015–2025.
Washington, DC: Enterprise Communit y Partners and the Joint Center for Housing
Studies at Harvard University, 2015, page 7. http://www.jchs.har vard.edu/sites/
jchs.harvard.edu/files/projecting_trends_in_severely_cost-burdened_renters_
final.pdf.
xii. Kunzelman, Michael. “Post-Katrina L abor Crunch Hurts Builders,” Washington
Post, September 13, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301026_pf.html.
xiii. Kristina Costa, Peterson, Miranda, and Marano, Howard. “Extreme Weather, Ex-
treme Costs: How Our Changing Climate Wallops Americans’ Wallets.” Center for
American Progress, October 27, 2017. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
green/reports/2017/10/27/441382/extreme-weather-extreme-costs/.
xiv. “Mission Statement.” PolicyLink, 2017. www.policylink.org/about/mission-
statement.
xv. City of Pit tsburgh, “Mayor William Peduto.” City of Pit tsburgh, 2017.
http://pittsburghpa.gov/mayor/mayor-profile.html.
xvi. “USDN Sustainabilit y Innovation Report; Equity in Sust ainability.” Urban
Sustainabilit y Directors Network, March 2015. https://w ww.usdn.org /uploads/
cms/documents/USDN_Innovation_Report _Tools_Equity_Scan-3-2015.
pdf?source=http%3a%2f%2fusdn.org%2fuploads%2fcms%2fdocuments%2fUS
DN_Innovation_Report_Tools_Equity_Scan-3-2015.pdf.
xvii. Community Resilience Action List: Action List for Community Track. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation, 2013.
xviii. Dinan, Terry. “Effects of Climate Change and Coastal Development on U.S. Hur-
ricane Damage: Implications for the Feder al Budget.” Congressional Budget Of fice,
November 2, 2017. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/
presentation/53244-presentation.pdf.
xix. Announcement: Moody’s: Climate Change in Forecast to Heighten US Exposure to
Economic and Long-Term Credit Pressure on US States and Local Governments,
November 28, 2017. https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Climate-
change-is-forecast-to-heighten-US-exposure-to-PR_376056.
xx. U.S. Environment al Protection Agency. “Urban Heat Island Basics.” In: Reducing
Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 2008. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/
documents/reducing_urban_heat_islands_ch_1.pdf.
xxi. “FORT IFIED Home standards.” Insur ance Institute for Business & Home Safet y,
2018, https://disastersafety.org/fortified/.
xxii. “Resilient Design: Drought.” ASL A Professional Prac tice Network, 2018. https://
www.asla.org/drought.aspx.
xxiii. “Resilient Design: Fire.” ASL A Professional Practice Network, 2018. https://www.
asla.org/fire.aspx.
xxiv. John Dos Passos Coggin, “South Florida Compact Is Model for Loc al Climate
Change Solutions,” Tampa Bay Times, July 26, 2017, http://ww w.tampabay.com/
opinion/columns/column-south-florida-compact-is-model-for-local-climate-
change-solutions/2331622.
xxv. Rebuild by Design Competition Rec eives Federal Award for Innovation, 2013.
http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/news-and-events/press/rebuild-awarded-most-
groundbreaking-federal-challenge-or-prize-competition.
Notes
2001 L Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036-4948
www.uli.org
