Building Climate-Resilient Cities: How Canadian Urban Design Is Adapting to Wildfires, Floods, and Rising Seas

Why Climate Resilience in Canadian Cities Cannot Wait

The climate resilience of Canadian cities is no longer a theoretical challenge, it is a daily operational concern. From historic floods in Calgary and Quebec to recurring wildfires across British Columbia, the threats are compounding in intensity, frequency, and cost. In 2023, Canada suffered over 3.1 billion CAD in insured losses from climate-related events, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada. These damages extend beyond property, disrupting critical infrastructure, displacing communities, and challenging the long-term viability of regional growth strategies.

As these risks intensify, the pressure on urban planners, insurers, regulators, and investors is escalating. The question is no longer whether cities should adapt, but how quickly and effectively they can.

Adaptive Urban Planning: Lessons from Calgary and British Columbia

Calgary offers one of Canada’s most mature examples of flood-responsive urban design. Following the devastating 2013 flood, which caused over 5 billion CAD in damage, the city implemented a layered flood mitigation strategy. This included upstream reservoirs, flood barriers, and land-use policies that prevent development in flood-prone zones. Importantly, Calgary’s approach integrates infrastructure upgrades with natural buffers, such as restored wetlands and riparian zones, which serve both flood management and biodiversity goals.

British Columbia, meanwhile, is leading wildfire resilience efforts. Communities like Kelowna and Fort St. John are adopting FireSmart principles, rethinking zoning to create defensible space around developments, using fire-resistant materials, and embedding emergency response access into community layouts. In 2024, B.C.’s updated Building Code introduced stricter requirements for the wildland-urban interface, forcing new developments to account for ignition risks from embers and radiant heat.

In our experience, resilience planning often fails when municipalities treat physical infrastructure as the sole line of defense. What works better is a multi-scalar approach that coordinates building codes, emergency services, insurance pricing, and land-use strategy.

Insurance and Zoning: Financial Levers Driving Change

Insurance is increasingly acting as a de facto regulator. In regions like Abbotsford, which faced catastrophic flooding in 2021, premiums have spiked or disappeared entirely, leaving homeowners and businesses exposed. Without coverage, banks hesitate to lend, and developments stall. Insurers, facing their own capital pressures, are now demanding that cities meet certain risk standards before extending coverage.

Zoning regulations are being recalibrated in response. Some municipalities are creating climate overlay zones that dictate not only where development can occur, but how it must be built. Toronto, for example, recently updated its Official Plan to include climate resilience as a core planning principle, giving planners more latitude to deny or reshape proposals that fail to meet adaptation thresholds.

What’s often overlooked is how fragmented jurisdictional responsibility can undermine these efforts. Federal infrastructure funding may require one set of resilience criteria, while provincial planning statutes demand another. This complexity makes coordination difficult, particularly for mid-sized cities without in-house climate risk expertise.

Infrastructure Is the Battleground

Critical infrastructure—roads, bridges, water treatment, electrical grids—is where the resilience gap becomes most visible. Many Canadian cities operate on legacy systems built for a 20th-century climate. Upgrades are expensive and politically sensitive, especially when they intersect with equity issues. For instance, floodplain buyouts can displace low-income communities unless paired with strong social policy.

Federal funding has helped catalyze some progress. The Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) has directed over $3.5 billion toward local infrastructure projects since 2018. But the backlog is immense. A 2024 report from the Canadian Climate Institute estimates that $5.3 billion annually will be needed through 2050 just to keep municipal infrastructure adaptation on track.

To get there, cities need better risk data, stronger project pipelines, and governance structures that can integrate climate scenarios into budget planning and asset management. In our work with municipal leaders, we often find that climate risk is siloed into sustainability offices, disconnected from where real capital decisions are made.

Financing Resilience: The Strategic Role of Capital and Incentives

Adaptation will not scale without sustained financing, and that remains one of Canada’s most stubborn bottlenecks. Municipalities, which own and operate over 60 percent of public infrastructure, are constrained by limited tax bases and outdated fiscal tools. While federal programs like DMAF provide critical injections, they are application-based and do not ensure long-term capital continuity.

Forward-thinking cities are beginning to experiment with climate-linked municipal bonds, resilience dividends, and public-private partnerships to diversify funding streams. In Montreal, for example, portions of green infrastructure funding are being tied to performance-based climate outcomes, linking investment to measurable risk reductions.

Private capital is also beginning to shift. Insurers and institutional investors are applying ESG risk filters to municipal debt, which means cities failing to demonstrate credible resilience plans may find themselves penalized in the capital markets. That shift, while early-stage, is accelerating in tandem with global disclosures such as TCFD and ISSB-aligned frameworks, now required in Canada for publicly listed entities and indirectly pressuring municipalities to catch up.

In our experience, resilience financing frameworks often collapse without rigorous cost-benefit modelling, credible implementation timelines, and integration into long-term asset management strategies. The technical capacity to execute this kind of planning varies widely across Canadian cities. This is where strategic advisory support can be transformative.

The Path Forward: Integrating Risk Into the DNA of Urban Growth

Climate resilience must become foundational, not supplementary, to urban growth. This means embedding physical climate risk into every stage of urban development—starting with land acquisition and extending through permitting, design, operations, and long-term maintenance.

Key shifts we see gaining traction include:

• Dynamic zoning tied to updated hazard maps, not static historical data

• Co-design processes with Indigenous and local communities, which enhance both social resilience and land stewardship

• Digital twin technologies that simulate climate impacts and inform planning in real time

• Cross-departmental governance structures that prevent climate adaptation from being siloed or under-resourced

Importantly, the need for resilience is being reinforced by regulatory and reporting trends. For example, under Canada’s 2024 National Adaptation Strategy, provinces are being encouraged (and in some cases mandated) to integrate climate risk into infrastructure planning and land-use regulations. Cities ignoring these shifts will soon find themselves out of sync with funding requirements, insurance coverage, and investor expectations.

Why Now: The Cost of Inaction Is Growing

The costs of inaction are no longer hypothetical. In 2023, Nova Scotia experienced its most expensive flooding disaster in history, and B.C. declared repeated states of emergency due to wildfire smoke. Meanwhile, sea level rise is now estimated to exceed one meter by 2100 in parts of Atlantic Canada, placing critical assets like ports, highways, and entire neighborhoods at risk.

Urban resilience is not a niche concern, it is a material financial, operational, and reputational risk. And while no strategy eliminates climate exposure entirely, cities that invest in resilience are seeing tangible dividends—from reduced insurance losses to stronger credit ratings and investor confidence.

We believe that climate resilience is a strategic advantage, not just a compliance issue. But getting it right requires more than infrastructure upgrades. It demands integrated strategy, credible data, robust governance, and alignment across departments, jurisdictions, and capital flows.

Let’s Build the Blueprint Together

Canadian cities stand at a pivotal crossroads. The decisions made in the next few years will define how communities withstand shocks, attract investment, and protect their most vulnerable populations. Urban resilience is achievable—but not without expert guidance, clear frameworks, and a commitment to execution.

We work with municipalities, investors, and developers to embed climate resilience into strategy, finance, and operations. If you’re ready to advance from planning to implementation, we invite you to start a conversation.

Written by: Gasilov Group Editorial Team

Reviewed by: Rafael Rzayev, Partner – ESG Policy & Economic Sustainability

Meet Our Team →

Frequently Asked Questions:

What is Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy, and how does it impact urban planning?

Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy, updated in 2024, sets a framework for aligning federal, provincial, and municipal actions to climate risks. It pushes municipalities to integrate hazard mapping, climate risk disclosure, and resilience investments into urban planning. While not fully binding, it increasingly influences funding eligibility and project approval criteria.

How are Canadian cities addressing wildfire risk through urban design?

Cities in wildfire-prone areas like British Columbia are using FireSmart design principles, updating building codes for fire resistance, and adjusting zoning to create buffers between developments and forests. Some are adopting ember-resistant materials and requiring water access for firefighting in new subdivisions.

Can infrastructure upgrades alone ensure urban resilience?

No. In our experience, physical upgrades fail without accompanying policy changes, governance integration, and behavioral adaptations. Resilience must include zoning reform, insurance alignment, and community preparedness—not just concrete and steel.

What role does insurance play in shaping climate resilience in Canada?

Insurance is acting as a gatekeeper. Where risks are high and resilience planning is weak, coverage is being withdrawn or premiums raised. This forces developers and municipalities to adopt stronger risk mitigation measures or face financing challenges.

How can cities finance climate resilience more effectively?

Cities are exploring options such as climate-linked bonds, resilience dividends, and blended public-private financing. However, funding success depends on having robust risk data, clear ROI, and alignment with national funding frameworks like the DMAF.