Urban–coastal circulations affect urban weather, dispersion and transport of pollutants and contaminants, and climate. Proper characterization and prediction of thermodynamic and dynamic processes in such environments are warranted. A new generation of observation and modeling systems is enabling unprecedented characterization of the three-dimensionality of the urban environment, including morphological parameters. Urban areas of Houston, Texas, are classified according to lidar-measured building heights and assigned typical urban land surface parameters appropriate to each classification. The lidar data were degraded from 1 m to the model resolution (1 km) with the goal of evaluating the impact of degraded resolution urban canopy parameters (UCPs) and three-dimensionality on the coastal–urban mesoscale circulations in comparison to typical two-dimensional urban slab approaches. The study revealed complex interactions between the sea breeze and urban heat island and offers a novel diagnostic tool, the bulk Richardson shear number, for identifying shallow mesoscale circulation. Using the Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting model (ARW-WRF) coupled to an atmosphere–land surface–urban canopy model, the authors simulated a theoretical sea-breeze day and confirmed that while coastal morphology can itself lead to complex sea-breeze front structures, including preferred areas of vertical motion, the urban environment can have an impact on the evolution of the sea-breeze mesoscale boundary. The inclusion of lidar-derived UCPs, even at degraded resolution, in the model’s land surface representation can lead to significant differences in patterns of skin surface temperature, convergence, and vertical motion, which have implications for many aspects of urban weather.

We use the Northeast US Urban Climate Archipelago as a case study to explore three key limitations of planning and policy initiatives to mitigate extreme urban heat. These limitations are: (1) a lack of understanding of spatial considerations—for example, how nearby urban areas interact, affecting, and being affected by, implementation of such policies; (2) an emphasis on air temperature reduction that neglects assessments of other important meteorological parameters, such as humidity, mixing heights, and urban wind fields; and (3) too narrow of a temporal focus—either time of day, season, or current vs. future climates. Additionally, the absence of a direct policy/planning linkage between heat mitigation goals and actual human health outcomes, in general, leads to solutions that only indirectly address the underlying problems. These issues are explored through several related atmospheric modeling case studies that reveal the complexities of designing effective urban heat mitigation strategies. We conclude with recommendations regarding how policy-makers can optimize the performance of their urban heat mitigation policies and programs. This optimization starts with a thorough understanding of the actual end-point goals of these policies, and concludes with the careful integration of scientific knowledge into the development of location-specific strategies that recognize and address the limitations discussed herein.