You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The week’s hottest real estate listings, ranked by climate risk.

Glued to real estate posts on The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Dwell, Spaces, The Modern House, or Architectural Digest and wondering how those gorgeous homes will hold up in the next decades? I have you covered.
Heatmap has partnered with my new climate risk platform, Habitable. Every Friday, we add a climate risk score to the real estate listings featured in the news this week and ask: Could you live here as the climate changes?
Using a model developed by a team of Berkeley data scientists at Climate Check, Habitable scores each property for heat, flood, drought, and fire risk on a scale of 1-10. One represents the lowest risk and 10 is the highest. Our rating for each hazard is based on climate change projections through 2050. (You can check your own home’s climate risk here.)
For today’s edition, I apply the Habitable Index to waterfront homes featured in the news this week. Is it possible to live on the water without going under. Will Bill Koch unload his Cape Cod ‘peninsula’ (and if you buy that, he’s got more swampland in Florida to sell)? And will Malibu surfers have to wave goodbye to The Wave house ?

This modernist home designed by architect Serge Chermayeff is for sale on 2.32 acres in the pines of Wellfleet, home to an exclusive community of cottages where the elites of modern architecture summered together in the 1950s and ‘60s. Marcel Breuer, Serge Chermayeff, Walter Gropius, Constantino Nivola, the Saarinen family, Florence and Hans Knoll, their friends and clients all had homes or rented summer cottages here.
Only a short walk to the most swimmable ponds and to Newcombe Hollow Beach, this house is fantastically sheltered and absolutely habitable with barely a climate risk. Featured @thecreativesagent and listed for $2,895,000.

Hummingbird House on Seattle’s Lake Union is for sale. This waterfront houseboat is conveniently located directly across the lake from the houseboat where Tom Hanks lived in Sleepless in Seattle. The three-bedroom home is named after the hummingbirds who nest each spring on one of the several outdoor decks. The birds don’t need to worry about being uprooted because the climate risk here is minimal — no fire, low heat and drought risk. The flood risk is 7/10, which would normally be worrying, except this house sits on a floating dock and will rise and fall with the seiches. Seems okay. Sugar water all round!
Featured in SFGate and listed for $1,995,000.

An unexpected and very habitable beachfront home on Vineyard Sound in Woods Hole is for sale. Interiors have custom cabinetry throughout and large, light open rooms with sweeping views to the beach and across to Marthas Vineyard. Perfect for a four-season beach getaway, the house has its own private beach and jetty with surprisingly moderate flood risk — 5/10 — considering the great location.
Featured in Dwell and listed for $5,999,000.
Bill Koch, the 83-year-old billionaire, has put 11 vacant acres of his Osterville estate on the market for a combined $16 million. Koch told the Wall Street Journal that he has decided to sell the vacant lots ‘because real-estate values have appreciated, and he doesn’t need the property.’ Buyer beware: Of the two batches of land on the available 11 acres, the parcels at the SeaPuit address have 7/10 flood risk. The Indian Trail parcels have no flood risk.
As seen in WSJ and listed for a combined $16 million.

Frank Lloyd Wright’s architectural masterpiece on 14 acres of protected land in New Canaan, Connecticut, is for sale. He lived here when he was building the Guggenheim museum
Yes, it would be a dream to live here. This is a house that requires you to live up to its architectural magnificence — a 15-room horseshoe-shaped house cantilevered over a pond and waterfall with a greenhouse, guesthouse, and bridge to a nearby river. And yet, it is also a house that would crush your soul when it inevitably floods, which, sadly, it is likely to do. Just writing that is crushing.
Featured in Mansion Global and listed for $8 million.

What’s more unbelievable — that Middlesea, Billy Joel’s just-listed waterfront estate on 26 acres on Oyster Bay Harbor has a bowling alley, helicopter pad, two pools, an extra beach mansion with floating dock, boat ramp, and a beauty salon (but only 5 bedrooms?). Or that the place is unhabitable for almost $50 million? Extreme flood risk is guaranteed on the 2,000 feet of waterfront. Just say no.
Featured in WSJ and listed for $49,000,000.
Surfer and architect Harry Gesner’s family home is on the market for the first time. The visionary designer, best known for the house he built next door — The Wave House — lived in his dream home, called Sandcastle, from when he built it in 1974 until last year when he died at age 97. With 122 feet of beachfront on Gesner’s favorite surf break, Sandcastle was built with love and a lot of salvaged lumber and old telephone poles. There are some insane details including a tree house, spiral driftwood stairs, an enormous arched hearth, and … portholes? Where am I? Soon, (sadly) under the sea or burnt to the ground.
Featured in @takesunset and listed for $27,500,000.

It must be the week for offloading surfer-architect Henry Gesner houses. The Wave House is the house Gesner was most famous for, right next door to Gensler’s own home.
But the homes are polar opposites. The Wave House is light and airy inside. It has no dark wood, only wide open white spaces with undulating rooflines — more Jetson than Sandcastle’s Swiss Family Robinson.
Legendary record executive Mo Ostin, bought the house in 1987 and lived here until he died last year at age 95. But imagine the parties? His artists included Frank Sinatra, Jimi Hendrix, Joni Mitchell, The Who, Fleetwood Mac, and Prince. The Wave House’s best days may also be behind it, considering the extreme drought, flood, and fire risk. Truly, it is the end of an era.
Featured on the Dirt and listed for $50 million.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation. What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.