Climate Resilience in Urban Planning: Legal Requirements for Flood-Resistant Architecture

Every building is a creature of the law: legal structures, zoning, safety codes, and environmental regulations define what can be built and how. These legal frameworks are evolving as cities confront mounting threats from climate change in the form of flooding, in particular. Architecture today must not only respond to environmental issues, but also to altered legal regulations that have been created as part of increased climate protection requirements. This meeting point of design and law is where I hope my experiences in architecture can offer something to legal thought.

Flooding is no longer something that just happens once in a while. In plenty of cities, it’s a persistent problem that requires long-term fixes. Governments see the specter of ever-escalating health care costs for an elderly population and respond with legislation that directly impacts architectural practice. It would do this through requirements such as building elevations in flood-prone areas, limitations on development at ground level, and minimum resistance standards for buildings and materials. The builders of the world must address these changes. But now legal limitations have flipped, becoming part of the design problem itself, something to work with, not around.

Planning policies for urban development have also changed accordingly. Resilience to the pressures of a changing climate is becoming a prerequisite in how we use land, invest in infrastructure, and develop housing. Laws, such as local ordinances or the National Environmental Policy Act, often steer how resilient cities are designed. These are not merely technical tools; they determine how cities distribute risk, allocate resources, and protect

vulnerable communities. That is to say, the legal order explicitly determines which safety and which speakers are protected through planning.

While architecture provides me with tools to conceptualize and visualize solutions, a legal education will teach me how those solutions are approved, financed, and implemented. The idea that legal systems can ensure that climate adaptation is carried out fairly without simply exacerbating already appalling social inequalities is of particular interest to me. Under flood resilience, this requires that lower-income or historically disadvantaged communities not be left behind when new standards are introduced.

Law and architecture come at problems from different directions, but they share a concern for public good, safety, and long-term thinking. Through the synthesis of both schools, I wish to provide guidance to policy development, which is forward-looking as well as pragmatic. I want to contribute to legal frameworks that make climate resilience not just a technical imperative, but a collective social obligation, one that connects design excellence to legal responsibility.

I've had my training to think in space and systems, so I am bringing to law school a designed way of thinking about shape, intention, and effect. It seems to me these are also tools that lawyers can't do without. My aim for them is to help address some of the most urgent challenges we face today, on how we create, protect, and sustain the cities that we call home.