by Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

Today, my home city of Montréal welcomes the 21st EU-Canada Summit, with António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, representing the EU. Leaders are expected to launch an “alliance for the future”, a framework for shared prosperity and economic security, and to pursue further alignment through CETA. Closer alignment with Europe can bring capital, and capital brings expectations around governance, transparency and risk management.

This is the argument Richard Betts and I make in our Perspectives Paper, Canada’s Capital Moment Runs Through Climate Credibility (see report below): Canada is competing for international capital, and commercial real estate is where that capital will increasingly judge Canada’s climate credibility. Two realities sit at the center of this discussion: physical climate risk is already reaching price, and investors will trust, and ultimately underwrite, only what owners can document for each asset.

The science is now on record. Canada’s own Changing Climate Report 2026 confirms that the country has warmed nearly twice as fast as the global average since 1970 and projects approximately 0.9°C of additional warming over the 2021 to 2040 period under every emissions scenario. For an asset bought today, that falls within a normal hold period and the term of its financing. It is not a long range scenario. It is the underwriting horizon.

Insurers and lenders have already absorbed this reality. Insured losses in Canada reached $37 billion between 2016 and 2025, compared with $14 billion in the previous decade, and OSFI Guideline B-15 now requires federally regulated financial institutions to report on climate risk. Physical risk reaches value through insurance costs, financing terms and the assumptions investors make about future income and exit values.

We know that owners and investors already price climate risk and sustainability when they underwrite acquisitions, often well before valuers reflect these considerations in appraisals. In research undertaken last year with Colliers, Impact of Climate Risks and Sustainability Factors on Commercial Real Estate Values, brown discounts proved easier to identify than green premiums. Markets tend to penalize risk more quickly than they reward resilience. Our current follow-up work on insurability goes one step further, examining how an asset insured at standard terms, insured at elevated premiums, or facing reduced insurability could affect net operating income and liquidity. In my view, insurance terms may become one of the earliest and clearest expressions of climate credibility in financial performance.

This is why asset-level evidence matters. Canada’s sustainability disclosure standards remain voluntary, while many of the European, UK and Gulf investors Canada hopes to attract increasingly expect risks to be documented and substantiated. Our conversation with the real estate arm of one of the Maple 8 pension funds reinforced this point: sustainability remains a primary consideration in investment decisions and a prerequisite for the partners it co-invests with. Owners who can demonstrate asset-level physical risk assessments, credible data and actionable resilience plans give investors greater confidence to allocate capital.

Green value is where climate credibility gets captured. As Canada and Europe deepen their partnership this week, those who build evidence asset by asset will be best positioned to attract the capital Canada seeks. The developments unfolding today have the potential to create meaningful opportunities for both Canada and Europe. Our paper explores why climate credibility may be one of the factors that determines who makes the most of those opportunities.

To access the document, please click on the icon below.

Perspectives Paper Canada’s Capital Moment Runs Through Climate Credibility (final)

218KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an "as is" basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

by Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

The Sustainable Finance & Investing Forum, held alongside Greenbuild 2026 in New York under the theme Invest for Impact, brought LPs, GPs, institutional investors, lenders, insurers, and senior real estate leaders together to examine how climate risk is reshaping investment decisions. I attended the second day only, on October 21.

This was the second event I have attended on the subject in less than a month, and together they show clearly how the industry has evolved and continues to evolve. At New York Climate Week, the discussions were around the shifts the industry needs to make, from backward looking ESG reporting to green transformation as a value engine, from static reporting to decision grade data, and from financial leverage to operational alpha among them. At Climate Week, these were presented as an argument. This time, most investors appeared to be well underway to integrating them as best practice.

The keynote connected energy, urbanization, infrastructure, and climate risk to the future of buildings and cities. The panel that resonated with me the most, An Investor, Lender, Insurer, and Owner Walk into a Risk Profile, followed right after. It examined how each part of the capital stack assesses and prices climate and transition risk, and showed three ways practice is advancing. First, capital allocation is becoming more precise. Investors and owners are moving beyond portfolio level screening to asset specific analysis, which is where underwriting actually happens. Second, measurement is becoming practical. Putting a number on climate risk is still complex, but better data and technology are making it possible to quantify risk at the level of a single building, and a risk that can be quantified consistently can be priced consistently. Third, and most important, the industry is recognizing that resilience has to be proven in partnership. Real estate cannot demonstrate the return on resilience alone. It has to work with the insurance industry to show that resilience reduces losses and should be recognized in how assets are insured and valued.

Subsequent sessions examined the intersection of digital infrastructure and the energy transition, underscoring how power availability, grid resilience and long‑term utility strategy are becoming central to capital allocation in one of real estate’s most capital‑intensive sectors, and how data centers, once viewed primarily through a technology lens, are now deeply tied to regional energy planning and climate‑related constraints. They also explored how intelligence embedded throughout the asset and investment lifecycle, from acquisition screening to operational performance to exit, supports more resilient portfolios and stronger market positioning. The session Allocation of Capital, Hosted by the Pension Real Estate Association was equally compelling: it added the institutional investor view, showing how climate exposure, liquidity, regulation, and execution capability are shaping manager selection, and where misalignment between funds and GPs is emerging. It is the same misalignment our panel addressed at New York Climate Week, now visible in how investors choose their managers.

The key takeaway: it has been a very positive surprise to see how the industry in North America is advancing. Best practice is deepening, bringing climate risk out of compliance and into underwriting, refining analysis from the portfolio to the individual asset, and replacing fragmented efforts with coordinated engagement across the capital stack.

Alexandra is President of Alexandra Capital, an advisory firm providing consulting services in asset and portfolio management for real assets across Canada, the US and the UK, and the Founder of SAM Curated. Alexandra and her practice combine practical experience with research‑based insights on sustainable investing, asset and portfolio management, valuation and next gen, drawing on current studies and on original research and content they publish regularly to deliver tailored advice to their clients. She is frequently invited to speak at industry conferences and sits on the RICS Governing Council.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Read more

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

This post is accessible to all readers.

Why we recommend it: A strong adaptation plan does not guarantee resilience. A decade after the ULI Advisory Services Panel set out a comprehensive strategy for the Arch Creek Basin, the area is still waiting for the transformation originally envisioned. The ideas proved durable: informing county policy, shaping two additional Adaptation Action Areas and helping unlock significant grant funding. However, implementation has lagged. Fragmented ownership, reduced federal support and new political constraints have slowed delivery, even as vulnerabilities continue to intensify. The Adaptation Action Area framework remains one of the county’s most effective tools, but the article makes clear that unified governance with a clear mandate is the prerequisite for turning technically sound plans into resilient, functioning places.

Key takeaways:

- A decade after the Urban Land Institute’s 2016 Advisory Services Panel proposed a comprehensive resilience strategy for the Arch Creek Basin, the area offers a clear illustration of why climate adaptation in South Florida advances more slowly than the risks it seeks to address. The basin, a 2,838‑acre drainage area in northeast Miami‑Dade County, had long faced repetitive flooding, FEMA losses and chronic vulnerability to king tides, sea level rise and extreme rainfall. Miami‑Dade designated it as its first pilot Adaptation Action Area and asked ULI to recommend ways to manage water, improve housing affordability and reduce storm exposure.

- The panel’s core ideas, building transit‑oriented development on higher ground, restoring natural drainage through a “city slough” park, and using transfer of development rights to shift density out of flood‑prone zones, proved durable. They shaped county policy, informed two additional Adaptation Action Areas and helped steer tens of millions of dollars in grant funding into neighboring watersheds. Yet the decade since has underscored the gap between having sound technical concepts and having the institutional capacity, governance structures and political will to implement them.

- Miami‑Dade’s resilience leaders describe the Arch Creek effort as ambitious from the outset. The panel organized its recommendations around four themes: social resilience for vulnerable populations, higher‑ground transit‑oriented development, restoration of historic drainage systems and coordinated governance across multiple municipalities and county land. Central to the vision were a future Tri‑Rail Coastal Link station at NE 125th Street and a large stormwater‑absorbing park.

- Many of these concepts migrated into the county’s 2021 sea level rise strategy, which adopted complementary adaptation approaches such as building on fill, creating green and blue neighborhoods and expanding green stormwater infrastructure. Several of these approaches trace directly to the Arch Creek recommendations. The Adaptation Action Area framework itself proved resilient: Little River followed Arch Creek, unlocking an estimated USD 50 million in grants, including septic‑to‑sewer conversions and green‑infrastructure‑based affordable housing redevelopment. Biscayne Canal became the third Adaptation Action Area in 2022/2023.

- Improved data has strengthened vulnerability assessments. The South Florida Water Management District notes that average sea levels near Arch Creek have risen roughly eight inches since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the G‑58 water control structure in 1959, prompting a study of how to replace it. Yet better data has not resolved the core challenge: fragmented ownership. Multiple agencies hold pieces of the resilience puzzle, but no single entity has the mandate to integrate them. This lack of unified governance remains one of the most significant barriers to implementation.

- Funding constraints have also slowed progress. Federal grants available during the Biden administration are no longer accessible, and Florida has enacted legislation limiting references to climate change in certain planning contexts. The Tri‑Rail station anchoring the transit‑oriented development vision is now targeted for completion in 2032—six years later than originally hoped—leaving a major component of the plan on hold.

- Miami‑Dade plans to revisit the original study to identify new opportunities for implementation. The lasting impact of the 2016 report may lie less in completed projects than in a shift in mindset: climate considerations are now embedded in every major decision. The basin has not yet become the resilient, transit‑connected neighborhood envisioned, but its four pillars, social resilience, high‑ground development, natural systems restoration and coordinated governance, now frame adaptation planning countywide.

To access the publication click 🔗 this link

Alexandra is President of Alexandra Capital, an advisory firm providing consulting services in asset and portfolio management for real assets across Canada, the US and the UK, and the Founder of SAM Curated. Alexandra and her practice combine practical experience with research‑based insights on sustainable investing, asset and portfolio management, valuation and next gen, drawing on current studies and on original research and content they publish regularly to deliver tailored advice to their clients. She is frequently invited to speak at industry conferences and sits on the RICS Governing Council.

If you encounter any difficulties, please contact us at info@samcurated.com and we will provide you with assistance. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for turnaround times, slightly longer during the weekends.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

Full access to the post is available to paying subscribers only.

Why do we recommend it: Climate risk is no longer a future scenario for UK real estate; the summer of 2026 made it an operational and financial reality. Decarbonization and resilience need to be planned as one agenda, not treated as separate tracks. I…

Read more

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Read more

by Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

New York Climate Week 2026 placed the built environment at the center of its agenda, and across more than a thousand events that focus was clear. Buildings, infrastructure, and urban systems were treated as the frontline of climate adaptation, electrification, and resilience. Discussions focused on the physical upgrades, regulatory shifts, and capital decisions required to modernize cities under rising heat, energy volatility, and infrastructure strain, rather than on intent alone.

I participated in several events and was honoured to join the Sustainable Real Estate Forum on September 22 and 23. Our panel, Silent Capital, Loud Consequences, examined a simple premise: institutional capital is tightening, and LPs are becoming more selective and more insistent on transparency as real estate shifts from leverage to operational performance.

Limited partners, LPs — pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, endowments, and family offices — supply most real estate equity yet remain largely silent, partly because their role is built for financial oversight rather than operational influence. That structure leaves execution to GPs, even though LPs carry the risk and often hold better cross‑manager insight. I have seen firsthand that LP operational input adds value, and as returns now depend on performance rather than leverage, their long‑standing, constrained silence is beginning to break.

What made the discussion meaningful to me was less the diagnosis, more the direction of travel. The whitepaper the panel drew on, Silent Capital, Loud Consequences: Why rebalancing LP-GP-Asset Manager Interaction is a Strategic Imperative in Real Estate, argues that rebalancing how these parties interact is now essential. It outlines six shifts required on the GP and asset‑manager side: from backward‑looking ESG reporting to green transformation as a value engine; from static PDF reporting to shared, decision‑grade data environments; from financial leverage to operational alpha; from decision transparency to decision authority; from AUM‑driven fees to aligned economics; and from fragmented tools to intelligence‑driven investment processes. Each mirrors what I have observed in my work on green value: sustainability data only earns its keep when it can be traced through to cash flow, CAPEX, and exit value, not when it sits in a compliance folder. As the whitepaper concludes, the future of real estate will not be defined by who reports best, but by who decides best.

The conversations that followed made clear the topic resonated. My own contribution focused on valuation and the role of RICS in setting standards, both areas at the core of my work. Turning sustainability from a line in a report into a number that enters the capital stack, informs underwriting, and shapes the data a valuation is built on remains central to the industry’s progress. If Climate Week’s built environment agenda was about accelerating retrofits, grid modernization, and resilient design, our panel made the case that none of it scales until capital, underwriting, data, and valuation evolve alongside it.

Alexandra is President of Alexandra Capital, an advisory firm providing consulting services in asset and portfolio management for real assets across Canada, the US and the UK, and the Founder of SAM Curated. Alexandra and her practice combine practical experience with research‑based insights on sustainable investing, asset and portfolio management, valuation and next gen, drawing on current studies and on original research and content they publish regularly to deliver tailored advice to their clients. She is frequently invited to speak at industry conferences and sits on the RICS Governing Council.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

This post is accessible to all readers.

Why we recommend it: This report, prepared for the BCIT Zero Emissions Building Learning Centre, offers a clear and disciplined account of how climate considerations can be translated into business decisions. Its value lies in showing that climate information becomes actionable only when it is connected to authority, accountability and the management processes that already govern capital and operations. It provides an evidence‑based view of how organizations are implementing climate‑aligned asset management in practice and sets out a coherent framework for strengthening decision pathways, capital planning and operational execution.

Key takeaways:

- The report examines how Canadian commercial real estate organizations are moving from climate awareness to practical implementation, showing that the central challenge is no longer identifying climate risk but converting climate information into decisions that compete for capital, shape operations and influence asset value. Interviewees consistently described a shift away from aspirational sustainability language toward core business disciplines such as risk management, operating performance, capital planning and continuity. Climate initiatives advance when they solve a business problem the organization already recognizes, and when climate information is framed in the terms used by decision‑makers responsible for capital, operations or investment. As one interviewee noted, “The challenge is not identifying climate risk. It is turning the findings into an actionable item that can compete for capital.”

- The report emphasizes that business model and asset typology strongly influence how climate risk is understood and acted upon. Investors, owners, operators and third‑party managers control different decisions, bear different risks and face different incentives. A technically sound recommendation can stall when the party identifying the issue does not control the budget. Similarly, portfolio‑wide comparisons often mislead because building types differ fundamentally in energy intensity, occupancy patterns, system ownership and data availability. Effective climate strategy requires understanding what the asset is designed to do, what the owner controls and whether the benchmark is truly comparable.

- Governance emerges as a critical implementation pathway. Organizational structure varies widely, but progress depends on whether climate responsibility is connected to authority, budget control and measurable accountability. Successful organizations treat governance as a sequence of decisions rather than an organizational chart, ensuring that each stage—from identifying an issue to approving and tracking a response—has a clear owner. The report highlights a persistent implementation gap: organizations often have more assessments and plans than capacity to act on them. Technical reports frequently identify exposure without clarifying what matters, who must act, when action should occur or how the recommendation competes for capital. Decision‑ready guidance must connect climate findings to avoided loss, lower operating cost, asset value protection or continuity.

- Capital and operational planning are described as the primary channels through which climate strategy becomes real. Natural intervention points such as equipment replacement, roof cycles, procurement and maintenance planning create opportunities to fund climate‑aligned alternatives as incremental costs rather than standalone projects. Missing a replacement cycle can lock in cost, emissions or vulnerability for years, making timing essential.

- The industry’s maturity varies across risk types. Transition risk management, particularly decarbonization, is more established because it aligns with energy savings, incentives and equipment renewal. Physical climate risk remains less developed, often treated as a future issue and justified through avoided loss or reduced disruption, which are harder to quantify. Insurance and valuation are emerging but inconsistent market signals; resilience investments do not reliably reduce premiums or increase appraised value, even though underlying risks are real.

- The report concludes that successful climate‑aligned asset management depends on three conditions: translating climate information into business language, connecting it to authority and accountability, and implementing it through existing management processes.

To access the publication click 🔗 this link

If you encounter any difficulties, please contact us at info@samcurated.com and we will provide you with assistance. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for turnaround times, slightly longer during the weekends.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Read more

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

This post is accessible to all readers.

Why we recommend it: This article offers a clear view of how environmental regulations in the UK and EU are reshaping flat roofing design. It shows how solar mandates, biodiversity requirements, embodied carbon standards and funding schemes are converging to make roofs central to decarbonization and climate adaptation. The piece explains why roofing is no longer a passive building element but a complex system that must integrate photovoltaic arrays, green or blue roofs, insulation and mechanical equipment. It is a useful illustration of how regulatory pressure is changing design practice, construction sequencing and long‑term performance expectations across both new and existing buildings.

Key takeaways:

- Solar requirements are becoming a defining feature of roof design. The EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive requires new buildings to be optimized for solar generation, with phased obligations for public, non‑residential and residential buildings. In the UK, the Future Homes and Buildings Standards introduce a parallel requirement for on‑site renewable electricity generation. In practice, rooftop photovoltaic systems must cover an area equivalent to 40% of the building’s ground‑floor footprint using panels with an efficiency of 0.22 kWp per square metre. Although the target appears straightforward, it becomes difficult to achieve once space for green roofs, fire breaks, safe access routes and mechanical equipment is accounted for. This shifts roofing into an early design priority rather than a late‑stage consideration.

- Existing homes are being driven toward similar outcomes. The Warm Homes Plan aims to triple the number of homes with solar panels by 2030 and raises Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards to EPC C for all privately rented properties. The scheme moves away from a fabric‑first approach and gives equal weight to photovoltaic systems, heat pumps and insulation. Roof build‑ups are becoming important levers for meeting performance targets, with thicker insulation helping to manage condensation risk and reduce cold bridging. Funding is substantial, including direct grants, zero‑interest loans and targeted support for landlords whose portfolios contain properties below EPC C. These mechanisms create strong incentives for upgrades that materially affect roof design and specification.

- Biodiversity and carbon standards add further complexity. Biodiversity Net Gain requirements make green roofs an important strategy for habitat creation and ecological connectivity. The UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard introduces ambitious embodied and operational carbon targets, prompting reconsideration of structural choices, insulation thicknesses and product selection. Designers must balance the carbon impact of thicker insulation or blue roof systems with the structural implications of added weight and the need to maintain waterproofing continuity. These requirements intersect with fire and moisture compliance, creating a dense regulatory landscape that demands careful coordination.

- Flat roofs are now layered systems integrating photovoltaic arrays, green or blue roofs, insulation and mechanical equipment. Each component affects structural tolerances, waterproofing, fire performance and access. Competition for roof space is increasing, and early‑stage coordination is essential to ensure systems function as intended. Designers are also navigating gaps in fire standards for photovoltaic systems, with proposed changes to Approved Document B still under consultation and implementation not expected until 2029. These changes may require panels to be set further from walls and roof edges, making the 40% coverage target more difficult to achieve.

- Across both new and existing buildings, roofing is becoming one of the most technically demanding aspects of design. The convergence of solar mandates, biodiversity requirements, carbon standards and funding schemes is reshaping how roofs are conceived, detailed and maintained. The article highlights why roofing must now be treated as a critical high‑performance system from the outset.

To access the article click 🔗 this link

If you encounter any difficulties, please contact us at info@samcurated.com and we will provide you with assistance. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for turnaround times, slightly longer during the weekends.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curators: Ana-Mihaela Faciu and Alexandra Faciu

Westmount, Canada

Full access to the post is available to paying subscribers only.

Why we recommend it: This recent report from the Pembina Institute examines four completed retrofit projects in Alberta alongside a catalogue of 164 barriers identified through interviews and industry literature. Taken together…

Read more

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

This post is accessible to all readers.

Why we recommend it: REIT sustainability performance now directly shapes capital allocation, underwriting, and long-term strategic planning across the sector. Nearly all large cap REITs disclose board oversight of sustainability, and REITs that lead on energy efficiency, clean energy procurement, and green bond issuance are demonstrating measurable financial and operational advantages. The 2026 Nareit REIT Industry Sustainability Report confirms that sustainability is no longer a peripheral consideration but a core driver of investor confidence, capital access, and long-term asset value, offering a clear benchmark for anyone assessing where institutional capital is heading in real estate.

Key takeaways:

- The 2026 Nareit REIT Industry Sustainability Report shows how REITs are embedding sustainability, operational resilience, and social responsibility into core business strategy as the real estate sector adapts to shifting markets, regulatory pressures, and stakeholder expectations. The report emphasizes that transparency remains a defining characteristic of the REIT model, with 96% of FTSE Nareit All Equity REITs issuing standalone sustainability reports and 98% conducting climate risk assessments. Nearly all large‑cap REITs integrate sustainability into 10‑K and proxy filings, and 98% disclose board oversight of sustainability issues, reinforcing accountability and investor confidence.

- Operational performance is a central theme. REITs continue to invest in efficiency upgrades that reduce operating costs, mitigate regulatory risk, and strengthen asset value. According to the report, 97% implement capital improvements to increase energy efficiency, and sectors such as health care and lodging report near‑universal adoption of upgrades that reduce consumption and enhance resilience. REITs are expanding their energy supply strategies by combining demand‑side management with diversified clean energy procurement. The report notes that 90% generate clean energy on‑site and 73% procure clean energy off‑site, while 55% use power purchase agreements to secure long‑term access to renewable energy. Data center REITs, facing rapidly rising energy demand driven by digital infrastructure and AI adoption, report 100% use of power purchase agreements and renewable energy coverage targets across 75%–100% of portfolio energy use, with commitments to reach full coverage by 2030 or earlier. Self‑storage REITs are converting rooftop space into solar generation, reducing operating costs and supporting community solar programs that expand access to clean energy for residents.

- The report highlights how sustainability performance expands capital market opportunities. A total of 98% of REITs participate in voluntary sustainability assessments, and 56% earn top scores, enabling investors to compare performance across companies and sectors. Since 2018, U.S. REITs have issued $44.3B in green bond proceeds, primarily directed toward sustainable projects. The FTSE EPRA Nareit Green Index series provides investors with lower‑carbon, higher‑efficiency portfolio options, demonstrating how sustainability metrics increasingly shape investment flows and index construction.

- Social responsibility remains a core pillar of REIT strategy. The report notes that 98% engage local communities and 90% provide incentive awards to employees at all levels, reflecting a broad commitment to workforce development and community partnership. REITs recognize that long‑term value creation depends on strong relationships with tenants, employees, and municipalities, and they invest accordingly. As benchmarking regulations, building performance standards, and climate disclosure requirements expand across 59 jurisdictions, REITs with established sustainability programs are well positioned to comply and to continue adapting their portfolios to meet evolving expectations.

To access the document click 🔗 this link

If you encounter any difficulties, please contact us at info@samcurated.com and we will provide you with assistance. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for turnaround times, slightly longer during the weekends.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

This post is accessible to all readers.

Why we recommend it: Severe convective storms (”SCS”) now represent a structural threat to asset performance, insurance strategy, and capital allocation, and this report matters because it quantifies that shift with a level of precision practitioners have not previously had. SCS are no longer a marginal peril: they are producing losses larger than any other natural hazard except tropical cyclones and flooding, and they are doing so through frequent, correlated events that cut across regions and sectors. For governments and market participants, this means underwriting assumptions, reserve adequacy, valuation models, and resilience investment plans must adapt quickly. First Street’s analysis provides the empirical foundation needed to recalibrate those decisions.

Key takeaways:

- 2025 marked a structural break: SCS generated $82 billion in global economic losses, nearly one third of all natural catastrophe losses worldwide and more than any other single peril that year, and, more significantly, cumulative insured losses surpassed those from tropical cyclones for the first time, reaching roughly $794 billion. This made SCS the costliest insured peril of the century, a status driven not by rare catastrophic events but by frequent, geographically dispersed outbreaks across highly insured markets. Since 2000, inflation-adjusted SCS losses have grown at approximately 6.8% annually, more than double the rate for weather-related losses overall. If this trajectory continues, SCS is positioned to become the third costliest natural hazard globally within the next decade, behind only tropical cyclones and flooding.

- First Street’s modeling shows the scale of exposure embedded in the global economy. Nearly half of global GDP is already exposed to frequent hail, while almost two thirds faces frequent damaging winds. Annually, $17.8 trillion in GDP is exposed to damaging wind and $10.6 trillion to damaging hail, with wind exposure projected to rise to $20.2 trillion over the next 30 years. The modeling framework combines observed severe weather with atmospheric conditions from ERA5 (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts’ global atmospheric reanalysis dataset) reanalysis and uses machine learning to identify environments conducive to hail, tornadoes, and severe thunderstorm winds. Future risk is assessed using CMIP6 projections under SSP2‑4.5, with exposure measured by overlaying hazard outputs on gridded population and GDP. Severity thresholds align with known damage points: hail at one inch and above, and wind aligned to the Enhanced Fujita scale starting at 65 mph. N.B. CMIP6 is the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, a coordinated international effort in which climate modeling groups run standardized experiments to project future climate under common scenarios, while SSP2-4.5 is a middle of the road climate scenario combining moderate socioeconomic development with a radiative forcing of 4.5 watts per square meter by 2100, representing an intermediate emissions pathway.

- Case studies illustrate how these hazards translate into asset‑level consequences. Calgary International Airport’s 2024 hail event triggered a multi‑year capital project, with modeled roof replacement likelihood of 74%. The Midway Solar project in Texas saw nearly 400,000 modules damaged in 2019, with modeling showing two‑inch hail capable of damaging almost half the array. Storm Ciarán’s impact on an LPG facility in France produced significant business interruption, while in the US, the EF5 tornado that destroyed Mercy Hospital Joplin kept the asset offline for more than a year. Agricultural hail losses in Spain highlight how SCS affects both current inventory and future yield.

- Exposure patterns vary by region. At a 20-year return period, 52% of global GDP faces moderate hail, rising to 97% at 500 years. Wind exposure is even more extensive, with more than 62% of global GDP exposed to at least 65 mph winds at 20 years. APAC holds the largest absolute exposure, while the Americas show the highest relative economic exposure and currently face the largest SCS wind exposure, driven by the United States. EMEA has lower absolute exposure but the fastest projected growth at higher wind thresholds. Across all regions, wind exposure grows faster than hail, with APAC the fastest-growing wind region at more than 18% over the next 30 years.

- The report concludes that SCS must be treated as a primary peril. Their frequency, geographic breadth, and correlation potential mean that outbreaks can generate losses across diversified portfolios, affecting reserves, insurance procurement, resilience investment, loan structuring, and valuation.

To access the document click 🔗 this link

If you encounter any difficulties, please contact us at info@samcurated.com and we will provide you with assistance. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for turnaround times, slightly longer during the weekends.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Read more

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

This post is accessible to all readers.

Why we recommend it: The article presents the rise of the “knowledge campus” as a fundamental shift in how corporations conceive headquarters, and although it does not frame the argument explicitly in sustainability terms, the model is inherently aligned with sustainable urban development. Knowledge campuses are dense, mixed‑use, transit‑anchored districts that reduce commuting emissions, repurpose existing assets, and support compact urban form. They demonstrate how sustainability, productivity, and competitiveness increasingly converge in the geography of corporate location.

Key takeaways:

- The article begins with examples such as JPMorgan Chase’s new headquarters at 270 Park Avenue, Hudson Yards, One Vanderbilt, and the redevelopment of King’s Cross in London. These projects illustrate a move away from isolated office towers toward integrated urban districts that combine workplaces with restaurants, retail, public space, and transit. This integration reduces the environmental burden of long commutes and car dependency. Workers can reach offices more quickly, walk between amenities, and rely on rail rather than driving. The article notes that employees in Tokyo’s mixed‑use districts often commute ten to twenty minutes by train, a pattern that directly lowers emissions while improving life productivity.

- The survey of 1,200 knowledge workers reinforces this connection. Productivity is higher in offices than at home, but life productivity suffers when commutes are long and daily routines are fragmented. Knowledge campuses solve this by compressing the geography of daily life. When offices, housing, childcare, food, and leisure are colocated, workers avoid the environmental and personal costs of long-distance travel. The article describes Tokyo’s vertical cities—towers with hotels, apartments, restaurants, clubs, coworking spaces, and transit access—as environments where “the place itself sets the rhythm of the day.” This is also a sustainability rhythm: dense, walkable, rail‑served districts that minimize resource use.

- Tokyo is the clearest sustainability case study. For decades its developers have built mixed‑use districts anchored by major rail stations, assembling land parcel by parcel and coordinating with hundreds of owners. Roppongi and Shibuya exemplify how cultural identity, transit connectivity, and mixed land use create districts that are both commercially successful and environmentally efficient. Shibuya’s nine intersecting rail lines make it one of the most connected nodes in the region, enabling firms to subsidize housing within two train stops and encouraging employees to live near work. This reduces commuting emissions and supports a compact urban footprint. The article also highlights Tokyo’s housing production—nearly 150,000 units annually—which keeps housing affordable near job centers and prevents sprawl. This is a sustainability achievement as much as an economic one.

- The article contrasts these successes with the decline of traditional downtowns and suburban tech campuses. Office‑only districts and car‑dependent suburban campuses are environmentally inefficient, requiring long commutes and offering few opportunities for walkability or transit use. Mixed‑use districts such as Mission Bay, South Lake Union, and Detroit’s redeveloped downtown are thriving precisely because they integrate housing, culture, and transit, reducing car reliance and revitalizing existing urban fabric. Google’s transformation of St. John’s Terminal into a green‑roofed urban campus is a notable example of adaptive reuse that reduces embodied carbon and extends public space.

- The concluding playbook, measure return on place, build districts not buildings, manage location as a portfolio, and focus on housing, implicitly outlines a sustainability strategy. Knowledge campuses show that sustainable urban form is not a side benefit but a driver of productivity, talent attraction, and competitive advantage. In this model, location becomes a strategic asset that advances both organizational performance and environmental resilience.

To access the article click 🔗 this link

If you encounter any difficulties, please contact us at info@samcurated.com and we will provide you with assistance. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for turnaround times, slightly longer during the weekends.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Read more

Curators: Ana-Mihaela Faciu and Alexandra Faciu

Westmount, Canada

This post is accessible to all readers.

Why we recommend it: The article shows that Los Angeles’s subsidized affordable housing sector has become a proving ground for disciplined, high performance design. Within tight financial and regulatory limits, architects are delivering buildings that advance environmental outcomes and social well being through all electric systems, reclaimed water strategies and courtyard configurations that reduce isolation and strengthen community. The article weighs the case for deregulation against the private market’s continued failure to house the most vulnerable, and presents affordability, sustainability and architectural ambition as connected objectives rather than rhetoric.

Key takeaways:

- The article situates this development within a long history of California’s failure to build housing at densities aligned with economic and population growth. Beginning in the 1960s, cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles downzoned neighborhoods and used environmental and preservation laws, including CEQA, coastal regulation and historic overlays, to obstruct new construction. Subsequent forces, including Proposition 13, the disappearance of single room occupancy units, the 2008 foreclosure crisis and the rise of Airbnb, further constrained supply. The cumulative result is severe rent burden and widespread homelessness, with three quarters of Los Angeles County renters paying more than thirty percent of income for housing and roughly seventy‑two thousand people living on the streets.

- In response, a coalition of elected officials and younger activists is advancing denser, transit oriented development. Measures such as SB 79, which upzones areas near mass transit, and reforms that limit CEQA’s use against infill housing reflect a broader debate over how to address scarcity. Strategies range from expanding supply at all income levels to stabilizing rents, building social housing modeled on Vienna and widening ownership opportunities through community land trusts and condominiums.

- The article’s central focus is nonprofit affordable housing. These mission driven developers, both religious and secular, rely on Low Income Housing Tax Credits and other funding streams to create deed restricted homes at subsidized rents for approximately fifty‑five years. They earn development fees rather than profits and are accountable to residents rather than shareholders. Their buildings typically serve households earning between thirty and eighty percent of area median income, including veterans, seniors and formerly unhoused people, and often incorporate supportive services. Although most projects use the economical Type V podium‑and‑wrap typology, which can produce formulaic structures, Los Angeles architects have turned this constraint into an opportunity for expressive design and social ambition.

- Sustainability operates on multiple levels. Environmentally, California’s tax credit system rewards performance beyond code, encouraging all electric buildings, reclaimed water systems, community gardens and certified materials. Projects such as Community Corporation of Santa Monica’s 502 Colorado, Koning Eizenberg’s LEED Platinum Arroyo and Don Empakeris Architects’ Las Flores demonstrate how environmental features can be integrated directly into architectural form, with elements like window shades tied to energy performance rather than aesthetics.

- Social sustainability receives equal emphasis. Courtyard based designs cultivate community, natural ventilation and daylight, countering rising household isolation. Resident testimony underscores the value of shared outdoor space. Some projects extend these benefits into the public realm, as with Koning Eizenberg’s Santa Monica Vermont beside a subway station. Others, including Studio One Eleven’s The Journey and Heritage Gardens, show how affordable housing can repair neglected urban corridors through terraced massing, gardens and pedestrian improvements.

- The article concludes by addressing cost and political friction. Critics argue that deregulation would yield cheaper naturally occurring affordable housing, and a RAND study finds subsidized projects cost significantly more per square foot than market rate developments, while the article counters that the private sector cannot reliably deliver deeply affordable, stable housing for the most vulnerable. Prolonged neighborhood opposition, illustrated by Venice Dell and the Rose Apartments, inflates costs and delays projects, yet these cases also suggest that exceptional design can shift public perception.

To access the article click 🔗 this link

If you encounter any difficulties, please contact us at info@samcurated.com and we will provide you with assistance. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for turnaround times, slightly longer during the weekends.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

Full access to the post is available to paying subscribers only.

Why we recommend it: This recent WEF article argues that insurability has become the clearest economic signal of intensifying climate risk. The article is not only about the built environment, but its message is highly relevant. With insured catastrop…

Read more

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

Full access to the post is available to paying subscribers only.

Why we recommend it: This Playbook is the first integrated framework that connects climate risk management across every stakeholder in commercial real estate development. It moves beyond siloed guidance to show how decisions by lenders, investors, dev…

Read more

Curator: Alexandra Faciu

Montréal, Canada

This post is accessible to all readers.

Why we recommend it: This RICS Journal article addresses a question valuers are increasingly asked but have few established tools to answer: how far climate adaptation risk should influence valuation when transaction evidence does not yet reflect it. It sets out the professional dilemma this creates under the Red Book, where they must follow market evidence that may lag the scientific position, and proposes a practical route through: improved disclosure, sensitivity testing against alternative defence pathways, and closer attention to liquidity signals, rather than arbitrary discounts. Directly relevant to anyone advising on assets that depend on flood-defense infrastructure.

Key takeaways:

- This piece examines a fundamental blind spot in contemporary valuation practice: the weak integration of long‑term climate adaptation risk into property pricing across the Thames Estuary corridor. Conventional valuation of assets such as a modern office building at Canary Wharf relies on rental evidence, lease structures, covenant strength and yields derived from comparable Docklands transactions. Yet this approach largely treats major flood‑defense infrastructure, including the Thames Barrier and the adaptive pathways set out in the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, as background context rather than a valuation variable. As the text notes, “the market treats this infrastructure as background context rather than a core valuation variable,” despite the fact that the long‑term resilience of these assets depends on future upgrades and policy delivery.

- The study analyzed thousands of residential transactions across the estuary, linking them to flood‑exposure data and TE2100 policy units. Using climate value‑at‑risk modelling, elastic net regression and machine‑learning techniques, it found a pronounced asymmetry in how environmental factors are priced. Energy‑efficiency indicators, including EPC‑related variables, are consistently capitalized into property values. Flood‑exposure indicators and adaptation‑zone variables, by contrast, show weak or insignificant relationships with pricing. This disconnect produces what the author terms the Canary Wharf paradox: some of Europe’s most valuable commercial assets depend on long‑term adaptation decisions, yet the market does not consistently reward properties located in defended zones. The credibility and durability of adaptation policy appear to be critical determinants of whether infrastructure protection is capitalized into value.

- The eastern Thames corridor illustrates this tension. Regeneration districts such as the Royal Docks, Greenwich Peninsula and Barking Riverside rely on tidal defenses designed for twentieth‑century conditions and expected to require major upgrades later this century. The empirical evidence suggests that current pricing reflects confidence in existing infrastructure rather than a fully articulated view of future defense pathways. Climate value‑at‑risk modelling underscores the financial significance of this gap: under moderate mid‑century scenarios, portfolio losses could reach 6 to 13 percent, rising to approximately 25 percent under more severe trajectories.

- This misalignment between scientific evidence and transaction‑led valuation practice raises a professional dilemma under the RICS Red Book Global Standards. Valuers must reflect market evidence, yet climate risk may be more visible in scientific modelling than in recent transactions. As climate‑related financial reporting becomes mainstream, chartered surveyors are increasingly required to interpret environmental exposure in valuation advice and due diligence.

- The article proposes several practical responses. Infrastructure‑dependency disclosure would clarify the assumptions underpinning current market confidence by treating major flood‑defense systems as valuation‑relevant factors. Defense‑pathway sensitivity analysis would allow valuers to test how asset values might behave under alternative adaptation trajectories. Attention to climate‑related liquidity risk would help identify early signals of market adjustment, which often manifest first through reduced buyer willingness rather than immediate price declines. Integrating climate‑risk evidence into valuation practice should not involve mechanistic discounts but rather strengthen assumptions governance, ensuring that rents, yields, insurance assumptions and terminal values remain credible under evolving climate and infrastructure conditions.

To access the article click 🔗 this link

If you encounter any difficulties, please contact us at info@samcurated.com and we will provide you with assistance. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for turnaround times, slightly longer during the weekends.

Disclaimer: SAM Curated, the curators and any other guests invited to share their opinions assume no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site and/or email generated by this site. Please note that the information on this site is provided on an “as is” basis, with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy, usefulness or timeliness.