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:
This 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 week, we add a climate risk score to the real estate listings featured in the news over the past seven days 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 see what’s the climate risk of the many (strange but true) round homes featured in the news this week. Read on to find out what is coming around for the houses that go around!

A lighthouse in Woods Hole (Falmouth), Massachussetts, goes up for sale this month. The picturesque, cylindrica Nobska Lighthouse Tower will go up for auction along with an historic shingled Cape-style home. Because this lighthouse is on a hill overlooking the coast, there is amazingly no flood risk, no fire risk, low drought, and heat tempered by the sea breezes. A habitable lighthouse? Absolutely. But you’ll have to get in line behind me.
Featured on NPR and listed for auction.
Have you ever heard of a swankienda? It’s a first for me, but apparently it’s a word in Houston circles referring to ‘unique’ Southern architecture. This iconic disc shaped home in an upscale historic neighborhood in Houston fits the bill and the shape does not stop at the roof. Inside is a giant sunken rotunda living room and curved fireplace and walls. Even the sofa is circular. With surprisingly low heat risk considering it’s in Houston, the house has no flood or fire risk and other than the mosquitos should be quite habitable if you can live without architectural symmetry.
Featured in Circa (!) and listed for $550,000.
Hilariously advertised as the only rotating home in San Diego, this architectural ‘showcase’ does offer spectacular views from its lofty perch on top of Mount Helix. And you can choose your view depending on the light, since the house does actually rotate 360 degrees. If you can live with no hard corners, do not get motion sick, and don’t mind extreme drought and some fire risk, then take this house for a spin!
Featured on @zillowgonewild and listed for $5,300,000.

This is such a cool place and a great buy, so it’s depressing to know that it's not going to end well. On the bright side, this unit and several more are available at the Round Dune seasonal apartment complex — which opens every April through October. Built by James Evans in 1963, who studied under Louis Kahn, this oceanfront complex made up of four round two story buildings in East Quoque will be fun to visit or live at until it’s underwater.
Featured @thecreativesagent and listed for $319,000.

A Streamline Moderne (art deco) estate is for sale in Silver Lake in Los Angeles. Built by architect Saul Harris Brown in 1938, the home features many curved architectural elements including an equally curvaceous garden designed by famed modern architect Gregory Ain.
Full of rounded interior and exterior walls, garden walls, balconies and staircases, the circuitous house is at high risk for drought, moderate risk for fire, and has little flood or heat risk. With some luck, this historic structure might live to see its 100th birthday.
Featured on @thecreativesagent and listed for $2,999,000.

To be fair, this Spanish Revival House in San Marino, California, which just went up for sale for $18,200,000, is not crazy rounded in its architecture. But the current owners renovated the garden arcade to create the home’s main event: a koi pond with a raised circular island with seating and a fire pit. Probably a bad idea for many reasons, including the extreme fire and drought risk for the property and the region. Make room koi, we’re jumping in.
Featured in Dirt and listed for $18,200,000.

Photo: Keller Williams Realty Southland Partners
This poor spaceship house listed for sale in Kansas City, Missouri, this week can’t catch a break! The namecalling! Saucer shaped. Resembling a UFO. The house was even advertised with a drawing of an alien on the front door and a spaceship over the house. Is it really that bad?
Well, it’s strangely shaped. And the rounded but also oddly angled interiors don’t make the place very habitable. Neither does the climate risk — with a 10/10 chance for flooding, it will also be extremely hot. Maybe it’s time for this house to contact its extraterrestrial friends and boldly go where no house has gone before.
Featured in the New York Post and listed for $349,000.
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 spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”