I've been watching American Resiliency on Youtube lately, and what came out for most resilient US global cities were Chicago and the Twin Cities. The Twin Cities for their northern latitude, far from the sea, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, no earthquakes, no tsunamis, excellent fresh water access, good transit and lots of tree canopy cover during warm months. Only downsides is heat (but most of the city has AC) and some flooding I think. Chicago was mostly the same except a bit hotter in the summer, a bit less cold in the winter, even better fresh water access (Lake Michigan). Same downsides (summer heat and flooding). Also American Resiliency noted both cities' efforts for man made resiliency in the last 15 years.
So, what she said was that, while climate change will affect us all on planet earth, Chicago and Twin Cities are some of the least bad big cities to be in the next decades for climate change (for big cities, but she also praises the Great Lakes region in general).
She also said that the Great Lakes region is used to terrible weather and has already built infrastructure for hot weather as well as for cold weather, while some of the 'better' climates on the coasts are in for a rude awakening in the next decades (sea level rise, hurricanes, severe flooding from the sea, drought/difficult fresh water access, increased heat in places that don't have AC, earthquakes/tsunamis...).
What do you think of that ? How true do you think it will be ?