Bridging the data gap in urban climate design

But in terms of strategy, I have an ongoing frustration with long-term plans. We’ve had strategies for 2010, 2020, 2025, 2030 – all with ambitious targets. But we often lack clarity on what is happening right now. We know the targets, but we don’t have the tactics.

I would rather focus on immediate actions – what can be done today with existing budgets. These tactics are what allow us to improve year on year and they are also what enable long-term success. For example, if we want to reduce urban heat by 2050, we need to plant trees today. If we delay action, we won’t meet those targets.

The overall strategies have their place, and are all ambitious – the issue is implementation. We need to focus on paving the way towards those goals through concrete actions from year one.

SCW: How should architects and planners approach climate resilience differently today compared to 10-15 years ago?

OT: The biggest shift is recognising that the greatest opportunity to improve sustainability is at the very beginning of the design process – before there is even a defined massing.

Traditionally, sustainability consultants are brought in after the design is set. At that point, they can only apply solutions on top of an already suboptimal design. These solutions cost money and have limited impact.

Instead, we need to integrate simulation into the early design stages. This allows designers to shape buildings for optimal performance from the outset. There is no sustainability layer that can fix a fundamentally flawed design.

What we need is a single source of truth – a shared dataset that can be accessed and interrogated by all stakeholders, from policymakers and developers to researchers

The good news is that there is strong motivation among designers to create sustainable buildings. What’s missing are the tools and processes to support that.

Another challenge is over-reliance on intuition. As architects gain experience, intuition can become a false sense of certainty. This is especially problematic when working in unfamiliar contexts – for example, designing in a completely different climate.

We need to start from data. That includes understanding that traditional meteorological data is based on historical conditions, while today we also need to consider forecasting data. With the right tools, we can simulate future climate scenarios and design accordingly.

The key is to evaluate early, use data from the start, and optimise building form and function before considering additional systems.

SCW: How is collaboration evolving between cities, planners and other stakeholders?

OT: Collaboration is a huge opportunity. Historically, data has been fragmented across stakeholders, and important information has often been inaccessible.

What we need is a single source of truth – a shared dataset that can be accessed and interrogated by all stakeholders, from policymakers and developers to researchers. This also ties into reducing the skill barrier. If data can be accessed and interpreted through intuitive tools, more people can participate effectively in decision-making.

Another critical aspect is transparency towards citizens. Traditionally, information has been curated and presented in ways that are not always accessible or relevant to the public.

With data-driven decision-making, there is an opportunity to be more transparent – to explain not just what decisions are made, but why.

We can even imagine platforms with multiple interfaces – one for decision-makers and another for citizens – where both can access relevant data in ways tailored to their needs. This kind of alignment can significantly accelerate decision-making.

The spatial component is also crucial. When data is presented geographically, it becomes much easier for everyone to understand the problem from the same perspective.

SCW: What is the role of historical data in a world of increasing climate uncertainty?

OT: Historical data remains essential. It is the foundation for generating future scenarios and forecasting models.

However, today’s challenge is that we rely on data we can validate and trust, and there is still no full consensus on the best methods for long-term climate forecasting. That’s why we often use multiple scenarios – for 2030, 2050 and beyond.

In practice, it’s important to use historical data as a baseline and then apply assumptions about future change. Personally, I prefer to look at simulation results in terms of patterns and gradients rather than absolute values.

For example, in urban heat simulations, the exact temperature value may change depending on the scenario, but the spatial patterns – where the hottest areas are – remain highly relevant.

With the right tools, you can evaluate the same design across both historical and multiple forecasted scenarios. This gives a more robust understanding of how interventions will perform over time.

The overall strategies are already there – we don’t need to rethink the targets. What we need is action. We need to move from high-level ambition to also focus on immediate, data-informed action. With the tools now available – especially AI enhanced simulation – we can make better decisions, faster, and with greater transparency.

The opportunity is not just to design better cities, but to create a shared understanding between stakeholders and citizens, and to align everyone around decisions that are grounded in data.