By Carolyn Canahuate, David Downs, Wil Fisher, Inbal Himelblau-Denman, Katie Schwamb, Graciela Watrous
As climate threats intensify across the globe, cities must confront a challenging question: How can vulnerable communities strengthen their resilience to extreme weather?
New York City remains at-risk from an increasingly erratic climate and related environmental risks. As such, significant public and private resources have been invested in future-proofing measures, including marquee infrastructure like East Side Coastal Resiliency and residential retrofits at large public housing complexes and single-family homes alike.
Nonetheless, the lived experience of New Yorkers today foreshadows an acutely uncertain future, along with a mounting variety of risks: coastal storms stronger than Hurricane Sandy, cloudburst rainfall along the lines of Hurricane Ida, extreme heat (the most deadly climate risk in New York today), and degraded air quality from wildfires. The New York Times projects that 30% of the city’s landmass, housing 17% of its population, could be “at risk of significant flooding” by 2080(1).
With these risks in mind, vast swaths of the city’s housing stock are unprepared or under-prepared to shelter New Yorkers safely during inclement weather. Regulatory processes and political realities struggle to accommodate swift and bold changes, particularly in the context of today’s housing affordability crisis and widespread distrust of institutions. Many projects designed to recover from Hurricane Sandy and protect against similar disasters were not completed until a decade or more after the storm.
The following case studies highlight practices that can be incorporated over a long-term period to help New York City adapt its homes to withstand future climate challenges while preserving community identity and reducing political barriers that delay or slow implementation. Each embodies key attributes such as flexibility, innovation, and community engagement – but how those attributes manifest reflect the varied contexts and scales of each location. These global examples highlight different approaches to delivering shared benefits while embedding resilience into a city’s ongoing growth and planning.
Floating Homes in the Netherlands
The Netherlands has spent centuries learning how to live with water. With roughly one-third of the country below sea level and another two-thirds vulnerable to flooding, climate adaptation is not treated as an emergency response but as a routine condition for planning and development. This mindset has moved Dutch cities beyond flood defenses alone to experimenting with housing models that adapt to water rather than resist it. This case study examines how the Netherlands uses existing development prototypes coupled with engineering innovations to create floating neighborhoods, and how government systems and local groups work together to make these ideas possible.
As housing demands grew in the early 21st century, major cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam found themselves competing for limited land. By August 2024, the population reached about 17.7 million residents with a housing shortage of about 400,000. This shortage reflects a combination of population growth, continued urbanization, shifting demographics, and growing demand for student housing.(2) At the same time, water levels continued to rise, making many areas of the Netherlands unsafe for development. Instead of fighting the water, communities and city leaders began to ask “What if we build homes that work with water instead of against it?”
This question led to floating homes – residences built on floating concrete platforms that rise and fall with the water.(3) Early pilot projects with 14 floating homes in Maasbommel proved the concept was safe, liveable, adaptable, and could be replicated in cities with similar estuary conditions. Dutch cities have since expanded the idea into full floating neighborhoods. Waterbuurt West in Ijburg includes more than 100 floating homes(5) and Schoonschip in Amsterdam houses approximately 46 households. Planned communities in Almere are set to grow by 2040.(6)
These are not houseboats. They are permanent neighborhoods with fine grain pedestrian walkways, minimal car access, utilities or regenerative energy sources like solar and wastewater recycling, and community spaces. Platforms can be built offsite and positioned on waterways, ideally with 5-8 meters water depth to avoid deep pilings and other costly infrastructure and adverse environmental impact, like shadows.
Floating developments require more than innovative design. They depend on coordination across planning, zoning, and governance bodies. Cities update zoning rules to treat water as a buildable space, using tools such as the Rotterdam Water Atlas – a design-driven research initiative focusing on the sustainable, long-term future of the Nieuwe Maas river and surrounding areas, aimed at transforming the city into a climate-resilient, water-sensitive environment. City planners work closely with regional water boards – independent public agencies elected by residents and responsible for water management – to review projects for flood and water-level impacts. Housing associations and community groups help design greener, more resilient neighborhoods. Updated building codes address anchoring, safety, and long-term maintenance requirements.
Funding follows a similar shared responsibility model. While the National Delta Fund – a dedicated financing mechanism for long-term flood protection and climate adaptation – supports major flood protection infrastructure, floating housing development is financed through a mix of municipal investments, housing associations, private developers, and homeowners with capital funding – all supplemented by water board taxes paid by residents. The Floating Pavilion in Rotterdam, one of the Netherlands’ largest public floating buildings, was funded by the city with €5 million to spur development. This public investment leveraged interest in the development strategy, a local brand for Dutch resilience, and future projects which are primarily privately financed.(7)
Floating neighborhoods perform by adapting during storm events, reducing energy and building material consumption and providing cities and their shifting populations an alternative for new housing typologies that can transform with demand. The model utilized by Square Floating City in Rotterdam and other global locations – like Dubai – can house families, students, and workforce populations by adjusting the overall size, ratio, and density of new housing units. based on demand over time. Cities have flexibility to increase housing and adapt to climate change. Nearly 20 years later the cycle of development has evolved, mitigating initial challenges such as high initial costs, slow approval process, and limited affordability, addressed by municipal leadership, structured community engagement, and long-term planning, coupled with private financing.
While floating homes may not be the next step for every neighborhood in New York, the Dutch example offers valuable lessons:
- Climate adaptation and housing development must be planned together.
- Cities need rules and funding structures that support innovation.
- Climate resilient housing must be accessible to people of all income levels.
- Water can become a redevelopment asset and not only seen as a threat.
Netherlands’ collaborative approach and willingness to reshape land use and update regulations is its real success.
Empowering Resilient Communities Through Community-Led Action in Bangkok
What’s a community to do when its infrastructure is highly vulnerable to climate risks such as intense flooding, heat, and water scarcity due to rapid urbanization and the replacement of wetlands with impervious coverage? What if that vulnerability was exacerbated by a significant number of low-income residents living in slums and informal settlements, which put those individuals at an inherently greater risk during extreme weather events? If you’re Bangkok, Thailand, you build off your nation’s history of establishing public benefit programs and launch a strategic, community-led initiative to empower those residents with essential tools for pursuing solutions customized to their needs and priorities.
In 2003, the Thai government launched the Baan Mankong program. Meaning “Secure Housing” and managed by the Community Organization Development Institute (CODI), a public organization that “supports a national process of people-driven development in Thailand’s Urban and Rural community,”(10) Baan Makong provides financial resources in the form of government subsidies and loans to poor communities to plan and execute improvements to local housing and infrastructure.
This community-driven approach in which the national government supports the local residents to be active participants (as opposed to passive recipients) in developing solutions is a core component of Baan Mankong. Cooperatives are essential to the program. By forming housing cooperatives, residents gain collective land tenure and access to government funding. This cooperative structure functions as both a financial and social safety net, enabling communities to pool resources, support potentially vulnerable members, and successfully manage long-term housing and infrastructure investments.
Baan Mankong utilizes two essential frameworks to support resident-led cooperatives in their resiliency planning efforts:
- Community Network, a collection of communities that can leverage their aggregate power and facilitate useful knowledge sharing
- City Development Committee, a joint committee composed of the low-income communities and other stakeholders, such as community leaders, municipal officials, academics, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and professionals who provide technical support.
These collective and collaborative platforms allow residents to access technical expertise and lessons learned to ensure that residential upgrades are strategically informed and can be implemented at scale.
An inherent strength of Baan Mankong is its flexible pathways to establish permanent, secure living conditions that are responsive to climate hazards. Communities choose the strategies that best fit their unique context, including:
- On-site upgrading: improving homes and infrastructure, while maintaining the existing layout and character
- On-site reblocking: reorganizing neighborhoods to implement improvements which may require individual dwellings to be reconstructed or relocated to benefit the community at large
- On-site reconstruction: rebuilding entire communities in situ, which allows for resiliency improvements, while maintaining community continuity
- Land sharing: an arrangement between landowners and settlers in which landowners retain a portion of land for strategic development and settlers gain legal tenure of their portion
- Relocation: moving a community to a more viable nearby relocation (within 5 kilometers of the original settlement) or to a relocation project (more than 5 kms away) – a strategy utilized when the burden of moving is outweighed by the benefits of housing stability and reduced exposure to climate hazards.(11)
This suite of approaches allows communities to strategically address their particular social priorities and climate hazards. This flexible model helps keep community character intact, preserving social networks that are vital during climate emergencies. Unlike conventional approaches, Baan Mankong facilitates urban poor communities and networks to be the key actors in this housing upgrade program.(12)
Baan Mankong is a compelling example of a cooperative housing and resiliency program because power stays in the hands of the residents and positive impacts are felt within the local community. The program’s flexible financial tools, its suite of upgrade and resiliency strategies, and an established framework for sharing knowledge and technical support allow communities to develop housing solutions based on their unique goals and priorities. As New York City works to build climate-resilient neighborhoods, Baan Mankong offers a compelling model for how community-led, cooperative approaches can deliver durable and equitable outcomes.
Bridging Neighborhoods in Detroit
Detroit’s Bridging Neighborhoods program offers a foil to climate emergency-driven relocations and home rehabilitations. Instead of responding to an acute disaster, the program responded to the needs of a large-scale infrastructure project – but only once a well-organized community pushed for it. The case highlights the Michigan government’s struggle to balance its roles in [1] preserving private property rights and community autonomy and [2] safeguarding general health and welfare amidst a context of historic siting decisions and environmental hazards.
After 20 years of planning, the Gordie Howe International Bridge is set to open in 2026 at the Canada-U.S. border in the Windsor-Detroit corridor. With a U.S. footprint primarily in the Delray neighborhood of Detroit, the project leveraged eminent domain to seize parcels needed for the bridge right-of-way and included a voluntary home relocation/reinvestment program for others nearby.
Before the bridge planning began, Southwest Detroit neighborhoods already experienced heavy pollution from a coke works, power plant, wastewater treatment plant, and proximity to Interstate 75. Delray was already sparsely populated, with around 2,800 residents living a quiet life surrounded by industrial sites and vacant lots. Construction of a new bridge and customs plaza that would drive traffic through the area would only worsen air quality – threatening safe and dignified conditions for area residents.
The eminent domain action to acquire the footprint of the bridge and approach required the relocation of approximately 600 residents.(13) In 2014, Delray-area residents formed the Southwest Detroit Community Benefits Coalition, in response to the likelihood that project directors would choose their area for the U.S. landing. Delray resident Simone Sagovac took a pragmatic point of view, noting that – rather than waging a David-and-Goliath fight against the project – “the best thing to do was to fight for the best outcomes possible.”
Initially, the Coalition’s priority was a voluntary buyout for the entire neighborhood. Like in Oakwood Beach, Staten Island (a neighborhood badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy), residents recognized that conditions were dire enough that the community may not have a viable future and residents should be given the chance to leave. Due to federal rules regarding use of eminent domain, this was ultimately not possible for properties outside of the bridge footprint, but this advocacy resulted in a $48 million benefits fund to address quality-of-life concerns and implement a version of a relocation program.
Approximately $32 million was committed to a program called Bridging Neighborhoods, administered by the City of Detroit, which offered home swaps and home rehabilitation for residents near the project (but outside the eminent domain footprint). Despite early opposition, a partnership between government and community leaders led to a multi-tiered solution. The project used eminent domain for properties directly in the right-of-way, an option to relocate for others nearby, and yet another alternative to mitigate quality-of-life concerns for residents wishing to stay in an area that would soon see more vacancy and more through traffic.
Most program funding was directed toward home swaps for residents who opted in, offering a newly renovated home in another Detroit neighborhood previously owned by the Detroit Land Bank. The availability of land bank homes stands in sharp contrast to conditions in New York City, in which there is no surplus of vacant land and unoccupied homes like in many Rust Belt cities. Supply constraints and low vacancy rates make relocation from climate risk areas very challenging without financial assistance or supply increases in climate-safe areas.Acquisition price for homeowners was zero; a true swap, regardless of the comparison of on-paper home values. In most cases, the homes that residents moved into were more valuable than the ones left behind. The remaining funds were directed to home repairs for those who stayed in Delray, particularly to HVAC systems and windows that would abate air quality issues caused by pollution.
The program was publicly branded as a third-party initiative – even though it was operated by the City of Detroit – and maintained its own website. Ultimately, although the Coalition pushed for the option, resident response to relocation was not universally in favor; approximately seventy-five homeowners have chosen to relocate or repair.(14)
Many residents held deep ties to their homes – some over a century old – and had already invested heavily in them. Others valued large backyards, the quiet atmosphere of a neighborhood with numerous vacant lots, or had no young children and therefore preferred to live the remainder of their lives in the comfort of the neighborhood they love.
A lack of trust in institutions was another significant barrier to the program’s success: early open houses showed homes in poor condition, asking residents to imagine and trust that the program would rehabilitate the homes before move-in, discouraging participation. Following this initial skepticism, the program renovated a model home to demonstrate what the conditions would be, helping residents visualize a future outside the impact area. The program eventually provided moving services for relocating homeowners and swift demolition of acquired properties in order to prevent vandalism and dumping.
Ultimately, the program represents a modestly successful intervention to improve the conditions for residents in a neighborhood that faced environmental hazards. Community advocates proactively advocated for a benefits program that surpassed the bare minimum, delivering new homes in better-serviced neighborhoods for many of the affected families who would otherwise be left in worsening conditions. Nonetheless, the outcome allows for continued residential occupancy of an area that will become more industrial and less hospitable, prompting the question: at what point should the government’s responsibility of protecting public safety and health override other priorities?
Big Swings for New York City
New York can create a program: Advancing Design and Planning Together (ADAPT) to provide funding within a flexible and low-restriction framework.
- Eligible recipients include a neighborhood, block, or community group. The grant could be used for legal services to resolve disputes, probate, and other title issues encumbering properties; consensus-building, mediation, organizing and outreach; technical assistance and determination of appropriate planning, infrastructure, and housing interventions.
- Eligible grant uses include:
- Legal services to formalize the group’s organizational structure and governance, resolve disputes between property owners, and resolve probate and other title issues encumbering properties
- Consensus-building, mediation, organizing and outreach
- Technical assistance and determination of appropriate planning, infrastructure, and housing interventions
- The administering body provides a prequalified list of third-party contractors and consultants, and funding is directed by the applicant within program guidelines, but never controlled or held by the applicant – avoiding compliance and regulatory hurdles.
- Grant amounts are non-negotiable and based on a pre-determined formula such as land area and number of people who stand to benefit.
This program addresses existing gaps in accessing funding for qualified and professional assistance while providing a path for hyperlocal groups to channel policy and planning recommendations outside the capacity of centralized government planning. It does not attempt to “reinvent the wheel” via an infinite analysis of possible interventions. Instead, it offers communities the ability to decide which proven adaptations are the best for them – ranging from retrofitting existing homes to redesigning existing, flood-prone areas as floating neighborhoods to ensure continuity and preservation of communities. There is no greater expert in existing conditions than a neighborhood resident, but limited bandwidth and lack of technical expertise often prevent the translation from lived experience to policy.
After Hurricane Sandy, residents of Oakwood Beach in Staten Island successfully petitioned for a voluntary buyout of extremely flood-prone areas (a program implemented by the NYS Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery, with uptake near 100%). Residents of 1920s bungalow courts in Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn successfully petitioned the Mayor’s Office of Housing Recovery to implement a holistic reconstruction, resulting in nearly 25 homes being reconstructed simultaneously alongside a new sewer system (controlled by a homeowners’ association that beneficiaries were required to join as a condition of receiving assistance). Residents of the Jewel Streets area along the Brooklyn/Queens border are collaborating with City officials on a first-of-its kind proactive buyout program in a flood-prone area. Each of these efforts required years of advocacy, pro-bono work by community members and third parties, and are difficult to replicate in all but the most at-risk and most politically-engaged areas. The ADAPT program would lower significantly the barriers to entry for communities to chart their own futures, creating qualified technical work and buy-in before petitioning government and others for further investment. to policy.
Fellows
Carolyn Canahuate
David Downs
Wil Fisher
Inbal Himelblau-Denman
Katie Schwamb
Graciela Watrous
Sources: