In boardrooms and design meetings, I’m hearing the same question: what makes a city both investable and liveable when everything - climate, costs, geopolitics, technology, demographics - keeps shifting? Savills’ Resilient Cities Index offers a useful lens because it measures the places that best balance economic goals with social and environmental objectives - the very mix that ultimately attracts capital, occupiers and talent. 

That is why delivering resilience matters so much in 2026. Our research defines resilience as a city’s ability to meet current challenges and adapt to new ones as they emerge. It has to prove it can keep functioning, keep evolving and keep drawing in capital, talent and occupiers as conditions change. The Index assesses cities across four pillars - economic fundamentals; knowledge economy and tech; environmental, social and governance (ESG); and real estate - which neatly mirrors how mixed‑use success is now underwritten. 

At the top, familiar megacities still dominate: New York, Tokyo, London and Seoul hold the first four places as they did in 2024. Scale matters because these cities create “virtuous circles” of supply and demand, pulling in talent, capital and occupiers. But the more interesting story for developers is how ‘non‑megacities’ are climbing - often through targeted infrastructure and liveability upgrades. In a more competitive global landscape, the advantage sits with places that adapt quickest to technological, environmental and societal changes. 

That shift is also changing how we think about essential infrastructure. The cities rising quickest are investing in social infrastructure to support liveability, not just roads and rail. In China, for example, significant investment in riverfront regeneration and urban renewal is reshaping how cities are experienced. The Liangma River International Waterfront in Beijing is one such example - transforming an 18km waterway into a cultural and recreational destination. 

Yet understanding which cities are becoming more resilient is only part of the picture; the real question, then, is how resilient places can still be delivered in a more constrained and uncertain market? We all know resilient places are needed, but rising costs, labour shortages, economic uncertainty and increased regulation are making them harder to deliver. 

This is where development strategy becomes critical and where mixed-use is proving increasingly important. It spreads risk, diversifies revenue and enables the curation of unique ecosystems. It strengthens the business case over time. The pandemic sparked anxiety about business districts, yet now they are adapting by upgrading office estates and integrating new retail, leisure and residential elements. Canary Wharf’s shift towards a more vibrant mixed-use “urban hub for living” is a clear example of this transition. 

Equally, delivery resilience is increasingly dependent on the nature of capital backing these projects. We are seeing developers forming partnerships with long-horizon capital who have the ability to withstand lower returns and higher risks early on in a project lifecycle; such as PIF in Saudia Arabia, AustralianSuper at King’s Cross London and Canada Pension Plan at MIND Milan. 

And lastly this is why the role of structured public and private sector collaboration matters so much. Yongsan International District Seoul demonstrates this clearly. Public agencies are taking responsibility for land assembly, approvals, infrastructure and governance while private developers deliver the vertical city. They are using planning flexibility to improve commercial feasibility (ensuring sufficient value and density to fund infrastructure) and using administrative coordination as an explicit viability tool – shortened implementation approval timeline to ensure programme certainty. 

This ultimately is where resilience is heading. Resilience is no longer just a design ambition - it’s a delivery obligation: infrastructure that boosts value, social amenities that retain talent, housing that serves multiple life stages, and environmental strategies that protect long-term performance. And to make this happen, we need a more intentional delivery package – aligning policy, long term capital and institutions in a more structured and disciplined way.