As climate change reshapes where people can live, architecture must respond not only to a changing environment but also to a changing population. Cities, developers and public authorities that plan early will be better placed to manage both the risks and the opportunities. Sustainability Consultancy focuses on climate risk analyses, which are vital for companies, but equally important for cities of all sizes. Climate change is often discussed in terms of rising temperatures, stronger storms, flooding, drought, and sea-level rise. But another consequence deserves more attention: where people will live in the future.
When homes become repeatedly flooded, agricultural land becomes less productive, or extreme heat makes everyday life increasingly difficult, some people will move. Others may relocate temporarily after disasters, while some communities may eventually need to move permanently.
Companies conducting climate risk assessments based on established frameworks such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and IFRS S2 may develop contingency plans that include relocation strategies where appropriate. These frameworks encourage companies to assess physical and transition risks, evaluate different climate scenarios, and consider how their strategies and business models may need to change in response to climate-related challenges. Such assessments can inform decisions on adaptation measures, investment, asset management, and, when necessary, relocating facilities or operations. However, relocation is one possible strategic response, not a mandatory component of every climate contingency plan. By anticipating climate-related risks and considering appropriate response strategies, companies can protect their investments, reduce potential financial losses, safeguard business continuity, and strengthen their long-term resilience.
What does this mean? In simple terms, companies use climate risk assessments to understand how climate change might affect their assets, operations, and profitability. For example, if a factory is in an area increasingly exposed to flooding, the company might invest in flood protection, adapt its operations, or relocate to a safer location. The main idea is that companies seek to protect their investments and build long-term resilience by identifying climate risks early and choosing appropriate strategies to manage them. Relocation is one option, but it is not always necessary or the best fit.
So, if we put it in discussion, where will people live in the future, and what will a production building look like and how will it be established? This creates a new challenge for architects and urban planners.
How do we design cities for people who may not be there yet?
A city can become a destination because of climate change
Climate migration is already shaping cities worldwide. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre reported 45.8 million disaster-related internal displacements in 2024, the highest annual figure in its recorded series. Not all of these movements can be attributed directly to climate change, but they demonstrate how environmental disasters are already affecting where people live. Looking ahead, the World Bank estimates that climate change could drive up to 216 million internal climate migrants by 2050 across six regions under a pessimistic scenario. Strong climate action and development could substantially reduce this number.
“The city is not a concrete jungle, it is a human zoo.” — Desmond Morris
The important point is that migration does not happen in isolation.
People often move to places with jobs, housing, healthcare, education, and existing social networks. In many cases, this means cities. But cities that receive new populations can quickly experience pressure on housing, water, transport, infrastructure, and public services. If this growth is unplanned, people arriving from climate-vulnerable areas may end up living in informal settlements or other locations exposed to flooding, extreme heat, or poor infrastructure. Moving away from one environmental risk can therefore create another.
The future city needs adaptable housing
One of the biggest challenges will be housing. Climate migration could increase demand for affordable homes just as many cities struggle with housing shortages. Architecture can respond by moving away from the idea that every building has to be designed as a fixed, finished object.
Adaptable, modular, and incremental housing could allow cities to grow more easily as populations change.
Modular buildings can be expanded or reorganized over time. Incremental housing can provide a safe initial structure that residents can adapt as their needs and resources change. The goal is not to create temporary shelters for climate migrants. It is to create real neighborhoods where people can build permanent lives. That means housing must be connected to schools, healthcare, public transport, employment, green spaces, and community facilities. A house without access to opportunity is not enough. Speed must also not come at the expense of carbon. Building quickly with energy-intensive materials and poorly designed buildings would lock in emissions and high operating costs for decades. Low-carbon and bio-based materials, the reuse of existing buildings, and designs that are easy to maintain and upgrade help ensure that adaptation and decarbonization move forward together.
Designing the climate-resilient neighborhood
Climate migration also changes the way we think about public space. A future neighborhood may need to provide shade during extreme heat, absorb heavy rainfall, reduce flooding, and provide places where people can meet and build new communities. Trees, permeable surfaces, rain gardens, green roofs, shaded streets, and water-retention areas can become part of the city’s basic infrastructure rather than decorative additions. This matters because climate adaptation can also create inequality. If a city invests in beautiful parks, cooling infrastructure, and safer neighborhoods but housing prices rise beyond the reach of existing residents, climate adaptation can contribute to displacement. A truly resilient city therefore needs to combine environmental adaptation with social affordability. The question is not simply… how to make cities greener, but how to make them safer and more affordable at the same time.
There may be no perfect Climate Haven
It is tempting to imagine that people will simply move from vulnerable regions to safer cities. Reality is more complicated. A city that is relatively safe from sea-level rise may still experience extreme heat, flooding, wildfire smoke, or water shortages. A city that receives large numbers of new residents may also struggle with housing and infrastructure. This means the future shouldn’t be about finding one perfect climate refuge. Instead, cities need to become flexible enough to adapt to uncertainty. This could mean strengthening smaller cities rather than allowing migration to concentrate exclusively in already-overcrowded megacities.
Bangladesh offers an interesting example. Cities such as Mongla have been discussed as potential destinations for people moving away from environmentally vulnerable areas. Strengthening secondary cities could provide housing, employment, and infrastructure while reducing some of the pressure on Dhaka. The lesson is important….. climate migration can also become an opportunity to rethink how countries distribute growth between cities.
What happens to the places people leave?
There is another side to the story. Not every community facing climate risk will need to move. Imagine that everyone living in Amsterdam had to move in 10 years… that is an impact. Many places can become safer through adaptation: stronger flood protection, improved water management, more resilient buildings, and changes to agriculture. But some locations may eventually face risks that are too expensive or dangerous to manage.
In those situations, planned relocation may become necessary. This is one of the most difficult challenges for architecture and planning because a community is more than its buildings. People have relationships with their landscapes, neighbors, workplaces, traditions, and local economies. Moving a community to a safer location can protect people physically while simultaneously disrupting the social structures that make the community function. Relocation therefore cannot simply mean building a new housing development somewhere else. It needs to preserve access to employment, services, public space, culture, and social networks.
Most importantly, the people being relocated need to be involved in deciding what their future community looks like.
Architecture for a moving population
Climate migration challenges a fundamental assumption of architecture…that we design for a relatively stable population in a relatively stable place. The reality of the coming decades may be very different. Some cities will grow because people move toward them. Others may shrink. Some neighborhoods will need protection, while others may need to accommodate new populations. This means architects and planners must think beyond individual buildings.
They will need to develop adaptable, affordable, and climate-resilient housing, neighborhoods, infrastructure, and public spaces, while strengthening secondary cities and planning relocation strategies that protect communities and support long-term resilience. The most important change may be conceptual. Instead of designing cities around the assumption that the future will look like the present, we need to design cities that can change.
What this means for developers, investors and public authorities
Preparing for climate migration is not only a design challenge. It also involves land-use planning, building regulations, financing models and risk assessment. Early questions include: Which areas are likely to receive new residents, and which face heat, flooding, or water stress? Can housing, infrastructure and services be phased in as demand grows? How can we protect affordability as neighborhoods are upgraded? Which materials and construction methods keep embodied carbon low?
Designing for movement, not just place
Climate migration is often presented as a future crisis. Millions of people will be forced to leave their homes and move elsewhere. But migration itself is not necessarily the problem. The problem is what happens when people move into cities that were never designed to accommodate them. If we wait until housing shortages, infrastructure failures, and informal settlements have already appeared, the choices will be limited and expensive. Architecture can help cities prepare earlier.
The climate-resilient city of the future may not look dramatically different from today’s city. It may simply be more adaptable: buildings that can change, neighborhoods that can absorb growth, public spaces that protect people from heat, infrastructure that can expand, and housing that remains affordable. Ultimately, designing for climate migration is not about predicting exactly where people will move.
It is about accepting that movement is part of our climate future and designing cities that can respond with flexibility, dignity, and fairness. The question for architects is no longer only: “How do we design for the climate of tomorrow?”
It is also:
“Who will be living in our cities tomorrow—and are we ready to make space for them?”
