By Rob Thornton, President & CEO, International District Energy Association (IDEA)��

Over the last two decades, colleges and universities have done serious work on climate. Many have cut emissions, purchased renewable electricity, upgraded lighting and controls, and improved building performance. They have also set bold targets to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, 2035 or 2040. Higher education understands its role as a laboratory for innovation and leadership.��

And yet, in facilities meetings across the country, a familiar moment is playing out. Someone puts the original decarbonization roadmap on the table and says, “We need to revisit this.”��

That’s��not a failure of ambition.��It’s��a reflection of campus reality. Colleges and universities are complex “mini-cities,” balancing aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, new construction, enrollment shifts, research growth, tight capital��budgets��and a changing climate that is driving higher cooling loads and more demanding resiliency expectations. Add grid constraints and volatile energy markets, and even well-built plans can drift off schedule.

The question��isn’t��whether campuses can decarbonize.��It’s��whether they can do it at scale, reliably, and at a cost they can live with, while keeping students,��faculty��and patients comfortable on the hottest day of the year and the coldest night of the winter.��

That’s��where district energy comes into��the conversation.����

District energy is a shared thermal infrastructure for heating and cooling. Instead of each building owning its own boiler, chiller, cooling tower��and control strategy, a campus can serve multiple buildings from a central facility that distributes steam, hot��water��or chilled water through an underground piping network. Aggregating thermal loads is the foundation that makes decarbonization,��resilience��and campus growth easier to deliver in practice.��

District Energy’s Advantages and Opportunities��

Most campuses manage dozens, sometimes hundreds, of buildings with different vintages and uses. If each building must solve heating and cooling on its own, the result is predictable: redundant equipment, oversized capacity, scattered maintenance��risk��and replacement cycles that rarely align with the institution’s long-term carbon strategy.����

On the cooling side, building-level chiller plants are commonly sized with 30% to 100% more capacity than a comparable district cooling solution, because each building must plan for its own peak. When you aggregate loads, peaks diversify. The system can be sized and��operated��for overall performance, not individual buildings. That translates into higher efficiency, lower peak electric��demand��and lower lifecycle cost.��

On the heating side, district energy creates optionality. A central facility can integrate multiple heat sources over time, including combined heat and power (CHP), high-efficiency boilers, electric boilers, industrial heat pumps, geothermal exchange, wastewater��heat��and waste-heat recovery from data centers. The “right” technology can evolve as markets and policies evolve, without forcing every building to undergo a complete mechanical reinvention at the same time.��

There’s��also a campus construction benefit: district energy is a real estate strategy.��

When you reduce rooftop chillers and cooling towers and shrink basement mechanical rooms, you give the institution valuable space back. That space becomes labs, classrooms, patient care, storage, amenities��or simply less congestion for maintenance staff. It also reduces noise and vibration, improves architectural��flexibility��and makes it easier to renovate historic buildings without fighting the constraints of modern HVAC equipment.��

Resilience is another differentiator. District energy systems can be designed with N+1 redundancy, multiple fuel��pathways��and thermal energy storage (chilled water,��ice��or hot water) that decouples production from use. For a campus, this strengthens the ability to ride through grid disturbances, extreme��weather��and peak pricing events while prioritizing mission-critical loads.��

Just as important, district energy can be built in phases, which aligns with how campuses are built—one project at a time, one renewal cycle at a time, guided by a master plan. Instead of treating HVAC replacements as disconnected emergencies, district energy turns them into a coordinated capital program: plant modernization, distribution��expansion��and standardized building energy transfer stations. When planned early, this reduces rework, simplifies future tie-ins��and keeps projects moving even when a building schedule slips.��

Where District Energy Is Driving Impact��

Across the country, universities are��demonstrating��what modern district energy can achieve.��

Cornell University built a global reference project with Lake Source Cooling, using cold deep lake water to meet a large share of campus cooling needs, reducing electricity��consumption��and avoiding traditional refrigerants. Cornell is now advancing Earth Source Heat, a deep geothermal initiative designed to meet most annual heating demand and sharply reduce reliance on fossil fuels. The lesson is clear: start with an innovative anchor project, then build the next layer.��

Princeton University is converting its campus from steam to hot water, improving distribution��efficiency��and supporting lower-temperature��operation. Its TIGER and CUB projects are designed to integrate heat pumps and geo-exchange, paired with renewable power resources and microgrid capability.��Converting��an entire campus is not quick, but Princeton shows how a multi-year program stays coherent when each phase ties back to a long-term thermal strategy.��

The University of Virginia highlights a complementary truth: efficiency and district energy are partners, not competitors. UVA has delivered significant reductions through sustained building-efficiency efforts (controls, retro-commissioning, targeted retrofits) and upgrades to central facilities. The result is��smaller,��smarter loads served more efficiently and cost-effectively.��

Read four key lessons for campus leaders and project teams in the Higher Education Edition of 91��Ƶ.

Rob Thornton has served as President & CEO of the International District Energy Association (IDEA) since 2000. With��nearly four��decades��in��district energy, he works with campus and city leaders to advance efficient, resilient, low-carbon thermal infrastructure.��

The post How District Energy Puts Carbon Neutrality Within Reach for Higher Education�� appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post How District Energy Puts Carbon Neutrality Within Reach for Higher Education�� appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By Mark Schoeman, AIA, and Lee Salin, FAIA

There’s the old saying that a failure to plan is a plan to fail. It’s a perspective we know well in the A/E/C industry, clients included. We can’t successfully design building solutions if we don’t define and understand the needs these solutions aim to address, which is why master planning is such a vital task in the overall process of managing facilities.

As we consider the state of education in America today, it’s clear that we are at an inflection point as educators are buffeted by multiple challenges. There are the lingering impacts of COVID-19, and the lessons learned to improve future pandemic responses to better support students, teachers, families and administrators. There is also the impact of technology on students’ socialemotional health and learning skills, which not only encompasses artificial intelligence but smartphones and social media, too.

To these factors, we can add ongoing ideological debates on how education is offered to students on a systemic basis, with the debate on voucher programs and “school choice” being one of several flashpoints. And there’s more, of course. The question facing educators, then, is how do all these factors cohere into a pedagogical vision for the day-to-day student experience rooted in schools’ built environments?

To answer, it’s worth considering the ways in which master planning, enhanced by strategic visioning, can go beyond material thinking to serve K-12 districts as a cultural tool for navigating change.

Getting to the ‘Why’

Fundamentally, it’s about the rationale for undertaking a master plan — the underlying “why.” At a minimum, master plans are meant to take a holistic look at facilities on a campus, or across a district, and contextualize specific needs (e.g. for deferred maintenance repairs, major modernizations and new structures) with timelines and funding. Yet we can go beyond thinking primarily in terms of facilities by engaging with, and incorporating, other elements, such as Education Specifications. Since these are where a district articulates its pedagogical thinking, these documents provide essential insights into the overall educational experience — teaching methods and tools, student engagement approaches and guidelines for evaluating student success in achieving learning objectives.

When it comes to thinking about how to teach given changing circumstances (e.g. the aforementioned pandemic impacts, technology and broader political environment), time spent developing (or updating) educational specifications and strategic plans — before beginning the master planning process can support more sophisticated results.

Rather than looking at facility improvements in isolation or in purely reactive terms, (e.g. what needs to be fixed in response to immediate needs), master planning efforts informed by clearly articulated and actionable pedagogical visions can define rich and multi-faceted improvements with long-term benefits. For example, if a classroom’s audiovisual technology is out of date, rather than simply upgrading to the latest equipment the master plan could consider the district’s hybrid learning strategy and how students can maintain the continuity of their learning experience in a variety of circumstances, whether at home or in the classroom.

The contextual and strategic approach to master planning can offer an added benefit, particularly when looking to apply pedagogical innovations to the many spaces that comprise a school. As effective master plans consider where buildings are placed, there’s an opportunity to understand why they relate to each other in the way they do — and judge whether this relationship really does serve the desired student learning experience. Furthermore, looking at how the parts of a campus come together allows for exploring underused areas in a building or campus, the interstitial spaces, to activate them in a way that further enhances the learning experience in line with pedagogical goals.

For example, a courtyard corner used for little more than seating could be enhanced with a garden planter to support STEM education in biology. Or an empty/utilitarian space within a circulation path could be supplied with seating, a whiteboard, and a Smart TV to become an interactive “curiosity space” for student project work and outside-the-classroom teacher interactions. Finally, viewing the various elements of a campus as a “network” supports more robust thinking about challenges related to wayfinding, safety and security.

Another consideration involves understanding a campus’ history and culture. First, this allows a school to continue to express and celebrate its identity and role in the community (e.g. through joint-ventures and after-hours programming). Second, this allows for understanding the history of changes in the campus and their impacts, positive and negative. Embedding a historical understanding of a campus (or multiple campuses) into the master plan can provide additional context for decisions made regarding future improvements.

Planning in Practice

So how should a district approach creating a richer, more multifaceted master plan that is more adaptable and resilient in the face of change? Crucially, it’s important to emphasize conversations with district staff, teachers, parents, and students to understand what their hopes and expectations are related to the learning experience. The goal is to explore more than just needs, but overall goals, constraints and opportunities — the “big picture” of how students grow and develop throughout their academic journey. We can build on this deeper understanding by paying attention to thinking expressed in strategic documents such as Education Specifications — does it reflect not only a district’s current thinking about the learning experience but also strive to address projected evolutions, and disruptions due to technology and broader social context? Does it purposefully incorporate adaptability and resilience?

Whether updating an existing education specifications or starting fresh, prior to master planning it becomes all the more worthwhile to conduct strategic visioning that develops a clear and holistic “picture” of the learning experience spanning past experience, current practice and potential future improvements. When all the above are combined, the outcome — a roadmap for navigating change — strengthens district leaders’ ability to respond to both immediate and longer-term challenges facing their students, teachers and communities.

Mark Schoeman, AIA, DBIA, is Design Principal at ABA Studios. Lee Salin, FAIA, is President and Managing Principal at ABA Studios.

The post The K-12 Master Plan: A Tool for Navigating Change appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post The K-12 Master Plan: A Tool for Navigating Change appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By Ulysses “Uly” Navarrete

For nearly three decades, the Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents (ALAS) has been the national home for Latino education leaders: the superintendents, administrators and rising leaders who wake up every day thinking about how to serve the more than 14 million Latino students in America’s public schools.

The organization’s mission is simple: to develop, connect, and empower the leaders who will close opportunity gaps for Latino youth, wherever those students sit in a classroom.

Through its flagship leadership programs like the Superintendents Leadership Academy (SLA), the National Principals Leadership Academy (NPLA), and the newest Central Office Administration Academy (COAA), ALAS has built, and continues to build, a pipeline of leaders who understand that not only does representation in the front office matter, so does everything a student experiences on the way to that office, including the building itself.

That is where a partnership between ALAS and 91��Ƶ comes in, and why it matters right now.

Too often, conversations about educational equity stop at curriculum, staffing and funding formulas. While these are all critical issues, the physical spaces where Latino students actually learn go unexamined. The research tells a consistent story: students are less likely to learn and thrive in buildings with poor air quality, overcrowded rooms, and outdated labs and libraries. That burden isn’t shared equally.

A vast majority of Latino students attend schools in districts with the oldest facilities and the smallest capital budgets. Districts where bond measures fail more often, where deferred maintenance piles up for decades, and where the gap between what a building offers and what a child deserves keeps widening.

ALAS members lead many of these districts. They are the superintendents standing in front of school boards making the case for a new roof instead of a new gym, the administrators walking reporters through buildings with intermittent air conditioning, the leaders trying to explain that a modern career tech wing isn’t a luxury; it is the difference between a student graduating ready for a skilled trade or falling through the cracks. They know, better than almost anyone, that facilities policy is equity policy.

A partnership with 91��Ƶ means our collective voice can now be amplified to help shape how architects, planners and school boards set construction priorities that address our Latino students. It means that ALAS members gain a trusted, expert voice on what quality construction and design should look like, and how to fight for it. Once decision makers see that leaking roofs in a majority Latino-serving district are not simply line items, rather, they are potential barriers toward bridging the achievement gap then priorities can start to change.

Our students deserve a sense of belonging shaped daily by knowing that the building in which they learn in says loudly and clearly that they are not an afterthought, they are seen and they matter!

We at ALAS are not construction experts, but we are the experts on what Latino students and the leaders who serve them need and we know that better buildings and better leadership have to move forward together. This is a story worth telling, together.

Ulysses “Uly” Navarrete is the Executive Director of the Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents (ALAS).

The post Building the Spaces Where Latino Students Thrive: Why ALAS and 91��Ƶ Belong Together appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post Building the Spaces Where Latino Students Thrive: Why ALAS and 91��Ƶ Belong Together appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By Carol Stolt

Higher education is changing fast, and learning spaces must keep pace. As technology, pedagogy��and mental��health awareness reshape how students learn,��designing for��neurodiversity has become essential—not optional. The question is no longer whether to accommodate��different needs, but how to create environments where every student can thrive.

Many institutions are finding that what supports neurodiverse learners—adaptable lighting, varied��seating��and better acoustics—improves learning for everyone. By combining empathy, flexibility��and technology, colleges can strengthen equity, comfort��and belonging while preparing for��what’s��next.��

From Accommodation to Empowerment

Traditional classrooms were built for uniformity: fixed layouts, identical��desks��and one teaching model for everyone. But learning has never been one-size-fits-all. Neurodiverse students—including those with ADHD, autism,��dyslexia��and anxiety—process information��differently, and��designing for��that range��benefits��all learners.��

Empathetic design starts with listening. Understanding how students respond to light, sound,��temperature��and space helps create environments that support focus and calm.��Even small��shifts—such as dimmable lighting, localized temperature control��or seating that allows movement or enclosure—can significantly improve engagement. What once��required��“special accommodations” becomes a shared benefit that reinforces a sense of belonging.��

When designers collaborate closely with faculty and students, empathy yields practical solutions that elevate access to empowerment.��

Designing for��Diverse Needs Without One-Size-Fits-All Solutions

The first challenge is flexibility. What supports one learner may distract another, so the goal is to provide choices. Adjustable lighting, zoned temperature��control��and a range of seating—from firm and soft to standing-height—help students find what best supports focus. Soft, enveloping seating can also improve comfort and attention for some learners.��

Acoustics matter just as much. Thoughtful use of microphones, speakers��and sound-absorbing materials ensures everyone—onsite or online—can��participate��fully. The best solutions feel seamless: inclusive by design, not added later.��

Still, physical comfort and flexibility are only part of the equation. Technology now plays an equally��important role��in shaping inclusive learning experiences.��

Supporting the Integration of Emerging Technologies

Artificial intelligence (AI), immersive learning, and hybrid teaching are reshaping the academic experience, making technology integration foundational. AI can personalize instruction, offering meaningful support for neurodiverse students who may be less comfortable speaking up in class.��

Designers can prepare with resilient infrastructure—ample power, flexible desk space, and modular layouts—along with cameras, monitors, and innovative AV systems that support hybrid learning and keep remote students engaged.��

Just as important, technology should strengthen human connection, not replace it. The best classrooms pair digital capability with people-centered design, supporting focus, comfort��and belonging as tools��evolve.��

Breaking Down Stigma and Building Belonging

Design is as psychological as it is physical. Spaces that normalize difference reduce stigma and strengthen community. Circadian-rhythm lighting can support mood and well-being, especially for students with anxiety or sensory sensitivities. Acoustic zoning reduces distractions, and shaded windows help limit glare that disrupts focus.��

These strategies support both student well-being and recruitment. Today’s learners expect responsive, inclusive environments, and institutions that fall behind risk losing them to those that invest. More campuses are measuring success not only by outcomes, but by belonging—recognizing that inclusive design improves engagement, retention, and mental health.��

But inclusion alone��isn’t��enough; higher education must also keep pace with the rapid changes reshaping how students learn.��

Keeping Pace with Rapid Change

Technology moves fast—and so do expectations. Today’s students are digitally native and expect connectivity,��adaptability��and seamless hybrid learning. At the same time, new teaching models demand spaces that can shift quickly from collaboration to immersive, hands-on work without disruption.��

To stay ahead, institutions must plan five to ten years forward, investing in flexible infrastructure that can absorb change. Classrooms designed to adapt can integrate emerging tools—like augmented reality and AI tutors—without costly renovations.��

The urgency is��apparent: universities that��fail to��modernize risk outdated facilities and��reduced��appeal to a generation seeking connection,��purpose��and innovation.��

Key Takeaways��

• Flexibility��first.��Varied furniture, adjustable��lighting��and thermal control empower focus and comfort.��
• Technology��ready.��AI-driven personalization and immersive tools demand robust, adaptable infrastructure.��
• Empathy matters.��Design that listens and removes barriers fosters dignity and belonging.��
• Future-proof now.��Investing in adaptable frameworks protects against obsolescence.��
• Well-being wins.��Environments that support calm and connection improve retention and mental health.��

A New Standard for Learning

The future of higher education depends on spaces as dynamic as the students who use them. Designing with neurodiversity in mind��isn’t��accommodation—it’s��a commitment to equity,��innovation��and growth. The best classrooms will balance technology with humanity, using AI to personalize learning while design supports comfort and belonging.��

With modest upgrades—dimmable LEDs, flexible��furniture��and acoustic balance—colleges can transform traditional rooms into inclusive, future-ready environments. As leaders plan campus investments, the message is clear:��designing for��inclusion is designing for the future.��

In an era of rapid change, the institutions that lead will be those that treat inclusive design not as a checkbox, but as the standard for how learning should feel—adaptive, empowering��and for everyone.��

Carol Stolt, Allied ASID, WELL AP, is Design Principal with FGM Architects. She can be reached at 630.574.8701 or carolstolt@fgmarchitects.com.

The post How Future-Ready Classrooms Can Support Neurodiverse Learners and the Evolving Needs of Higher Education appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post How Future-Ready Classrooms Can Support Neurodiverse Learners and the Evolving Needs of Higher Education appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By Josh Curran

As the buses pull away from schools on the final day of school this June, a new race begins. For students, summer is a time for family vacations and sleep-away camps. But, for school leaders, maintenance crews and elected school boards, it is the start of an unforgiving 10-week race. The goal is clear: complete essential renovations and upgrades and have their school building safe and ready to welcome students back in August. In the school construction industry, we call this the “Summer Sprint”. And, it is the ultimate test of a district’s capital improvement strategy.��

During the��hot summer��months, the core challenge for local districts is not just the work itself, but the sheer volume of projects that must be delivered simultaneously. Managing��numerous��small to mid-sized upgrades including everything from HVAC replacements to classroom refreshes very often��stretch��the already limited staff resources to their breaking point.��

Increasingly today, savvy district leaders are solving this challenge by shifting to a new construction contracting playbook: one that emphasizes Qualification-Based Selection (QBS).����For these districts, QBS allows them to choose a trusted partner based on their expertise, capabilities and past performance rather than just the bottom-line low-bid dollars and cents. By prioritizing a contractor’s ability to deliver, districts can mitigate the risks associated with the compressed “Summer Sprint” window, while ensuring they’re keeping an eye on delivering value for taxpayers.��

Methods like Construction Management (CM) and Job Order Contracting (JOC) are both forms of QBS. While they have nuanced differences, both factor a builder’s qualifications into the award process. Whether districts decide to go with Construction Management or JOC, both help district leaders close the staffing and resource “capacity gap” through an on-going, standing partnership that offer a variety of operational benefits:����

• Accelerated Delivery:��With a building partner already in place, the work can start in weeks rather than months, ensuring no time is wasted during the short summer vacation.��

• Transparent Pricing:��Whether using a Construction Manager or a JOC Unit Price Book, these methods provide the fiscal accountability and budget control that school boards��require.��

• Reduced Administrative Burden:��A single procurement process can cover multiple summer projects, cutting down on the staff hours needed to manage the workload.��

• Quality Consistency:��Working with a trusted, experienced team ensures that standards��remain��high even when the schedule is tight.��

• Solves the “No Bidder” Problem:��Small and mid-sized projects (like a single door replacement or emergency repair) often��fail to��attract quality bidders in a traditional cycle. By having an established partner,��you’re��guaranteed to have a high-capacity, pre-qualified builder that is ready to respond to any scope, regardless of size or market conditions.��

• Flexibility and Scalability:��These models are ideal for the small projects that dominate summer renovation��lists�� as��well as larger capital programs phased over multiple summers.��

There are other ‘hidden benefits’ of QBS for school districts, too. Ask any school CFO about their most-recent design-bid-build capital project. They’ll tell you that their biggest frustration throughout the project is change orders. In many cases, low bids often lead to change orders that ultimately and unexpectedly sets up an adversarial relationship between the district and the builder. Because prices are set by the pre-negotiated Unit Price Book, the adversarial nature of traditional bidding is removed with JOC. If the scope changes, the price is simply adjusted using the same trusted catalog.����Similarly, in a Construction Management delivery scenario, the CM performs the sealed public bidding on behalf of the district, providing a granular and transparent accounting of all costs throughout the project. No more “low-ball” bids followed by expensive surprises.

By shifting toward this new qualifications-based��selection, local school leaders can manage their aging buildings and upgrade their facilities more effectively while��remaining��responsible with taxpayer funds. This approach allows districts to stay ahead of facility needs during the “Summer Sprint” without exhausting their internal teams.����

But, most importantly, it ensures that when everyone returns for that first bell in August or September, the school will be safe and ready for the students to learn.

Learn more about strategically tackling Summer Sprint projects at the Aug. 5 Design & Construction Symposium in Denver. Get your tickets today!

Josh��Curran is Vice President and Director of K-12 Construction for Chicago-based national infrastructure builder F.H. Paschen.��

The post Why “The Summer Sprint” Requires a New K-12 School Construction Contracting Playbook�� appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post Why “The Summer Sprint” Requires a New K-12 School Construction Contracting Playbook�� appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By VS America

Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs build connections between academic coursework and real-world application, providing some of the most meaningful elements of career exploration.

Team-based, project-oriented approaches supported by flexible classroom designs are transforming both CTE and STEM learning environments. Agile furniture plays a pivotal role in creating adaptive spaces that can be easily reconfigured to support hands-on learning, collaboration and evolving instructional needs.����

According to the Internation Journal of STEM Education: “The flexibility of a learning environment��is directly proportional to the��creativity it fosters.”

Work-Based Learning ��

Work-based learning integrates academic learning with practical, real-world experience to prepare students for future careers. By aligning classroom instruction with hands-on activities, students gain a deeper understanding of their chosen fields and develop essential technical and employability skills.��

Partnerships with local businesses provide opportunities for internships, apprenticeships, and real-world projects, enabling students to apply theoretical knowledge in practical settings. This experiential learning enhances technical proficiency and cultivates critical thinking, adaptability and collaboration skills — all vital for success in today’s dynamic job market.��

Planning Tip:��Designate��collaborative areas with large tables, comfortable seating, and writable surfaces like whiteboards or glass boards. These spaces should encourage group discussions, brainstorming, and teamwork,��fostering��peer��interaction��and developing essential communication and collaboration skills.��

Student Leadership��

A key purpose of student leadership spaces is to foster personal development, academic learning, and career preparation, supporting overall student growth. Student leadership is transformative as it ignites potential, fosters initiative, and hones problem-solving and decision-making skills. By taking on leadership roles, students lead projects, collaborate, and tackle real-world challenges, building confidence for future careers. These roles instill a deep sense of responsibility and ownership, fueling commitment to their educational and career aspirations.��

Planning Tip:��Design student leadership and apprenticeship spaces with versatile, multipurpose furniture to support a variety of learning and professional development activities. Ensure these spaces align with career pathways and postsecondary education, fostering environments that promote hands-on learning, collaboration, and interactions with industry professionals.��

Laboratory Learning��

Laboratory learning spaces should align with local labor market needs, ensuring the curriculum prepares students for careers in their community by supporting work that mirrors real-life scenarios. This approach enhances student engagement through project-based learning and helps build strong business and community partnerships. Sourcing projects from online communities or creating a makerspace within the lab can provide diverse learning experiences, while integrating relevant technologies and equipment into lesson plans ensures students are prepared for modern workplaces.����

Planning Tip:��The��appropriate furniture��solutions – such as movable lab benches, adjustable workstations, effective storage, and versatile seating – support the dynamic use of space and allow for quick reconfiguration to accommodate various activities and instructional methods.��

Classroom Instruction��

The design of CTE and STEM classrooms is crucial because it directly influences the quality and effectiveness of student learning experiences. These classrooms should be designed to be flexible and adaptable, allowing for easy reconfiguration to accommodate a variety of teaching methods and learning activities. By creating well-organized, adaptable, and resource-rich environments, CTE and STEM classrooms effectively prepare students for the demands of modern careers, equipping them with the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.��

Planning Tip:��Design CTE��and STEM��classrooms with flexible and movable furniture to create versatile zones for group work and individual study, ensuring adaptability to various teaching methods and evolving educational needs.��

Why the Physical Learning Environment Matters��

Agile furniture in CTE��and STEM��learning environments��goes beyond mere aesthetics. As a study in the��Journal of Science Education and Technology��states, “The physical classroom environment significantly influences students’ collaboration and engagement in STEM activities.” This underscores the need for furniture that is adaptable and can be reconfigured to suit various learning and teaching styles.��

Explore more STEM, maker, and CTE room concepts at .����

The post Designing Career and Technical Education Spaces for Real-World Learning appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post Designing Career and Technical Education Spaces for Real-World Learning appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By Petra Sucher��

For school districts across the country, summer signals the beginning of the busiest season for capital planning and construction. As students leave campus, crews mobilize to complete renovations, infrastructure improvements and new construction projects, many of which are made possible through voter-approved bond referendums. Understanding where districts are in the funding pipeline — and where the next opportunities are emerging — has become increasingly important for architects, engineers, contractors, manufacturers and service providers looking to support K-12 capital programs. By tracking bond activity from the earliest planning stages through election outcomes, SchoolBondFinder provides a real-time view of how districts are prioritizing facility investments and where the market is headed.����

SchoolBondFinder��specializes in tracking K-12 capital project bonds across the nation.��The��platform monitors school district bond initiatives across key stages, providing stakeholders with crucial data on project scope, financing, and voter outcomes.��

• Watch List:��Districts may be added to this list following initial activities such as a facilities study, demographic study, capital improvement plans review or a feasibility survey.��
• Proposed List: A bond is moved to this list once a school board officially approves a referendum for a vote. At this point, the vote date, official ballot language, use and amount are finalized.��
• Passed/Failed List:��Updates on school bond referendum votes — both passed��and��failed — are typically available on the platform within 24 to 72 hours of the official results being released.��

Quarter 2 (April 1-June 30):��

For the second quarter,��$22.6 billion in referendums have been approved as of��June 15. There are currently��10��voting opportunities��remaining��through the end of June, with an estimated value of��$632 Million. To date, June elections have passed��25��bonds and��13��have��failed, resulting in a��52%��pass rate. Currently there is��a strong��support and focus on bonds that address physical facility needs and safety upgrades.

One pattern emerging is that school districts are combining physical infrastructure and safety upgrades into single, comprehensive bond packages rather than funding them separately. Approximately 47%��of passed bonds for Q2 focused on��allocated funds for safety and security upgrades. Examples of safety and security enhancements��are��installing secure entrances, security cameras and alarm systems.����

��Top 3 States for Q2 Bond Measures:��

1. Texas: $11 billion across 92 measures��
2. Georgia: $1 billion across 13 measures��
3. Michigan: $1 billion across 33 measures��

The Start of the Fiscal Year

The K-12 education funding cycle begins on July 1 and concludes on June 30 for 46 states. This period serves as “go time” for school districts, as they activate new funding streams, issue bonds and authorize summer capital construction projects. The end of the school year provides an ideal window for infrastructure work, such as roof replacements and HVAC upgrades, to begin.��

The timing is critical because many local school boards submit architectural plans to state education agencies before the July 1 deadline to secure early approval for both plans and funding. To effectively capture capital projects and bond opportunities, education companies must prioritize early engagement with school boards and districts before the new fiscal year begins. It is critical for firms to establish themselves as a trusted, value-add partner and to ensure their offerings align with specific district needs.��

Upcoming Elections and Events

Currently SchoolBondFinder is tracking $50 billion in opportunities for 2026, with many watchlist items with no funds attached yet. August elections are around the corner with 28��bonds on the proposed list. These elections will primarily take place in Oklahoma and Michigan. ��

On Aug. 5, SchoolBondFinder will be in Denver presenting at the 91��Ƶ Design & Construction Symposium. Experts will be talking about 2026 State of School Tax Elections: Outcomes & Outlooks. This informative session will review the current K-12 school referendum landscape in the U.S., including total funding and approved opportunities, trends in capital projects and spending, and forecasts for the rest of 2026 into 2027. Register today.

With nearly $50 billion in tracked opportunities already on the horizon for 2026—and many additional projects still in the planning stages before funding amounts are determined — the K-12 capital market continues to present significant opportunities for industry partners. For firms serving the education sector, success depends not only on monitoring election results but on understanding where districts are in the planning process and engaging well before projects reach the construction phase. As the new fiscal year begins and districts move from planning to procurement, those that establish themselves as trusted resources early will be best positioned to support the next generation of school facilities. SchoolBondFinder will continue to monitor these trends throughout the year, providing timely data and insights into the evolving landscape of school funding, capital investment and construction nationwide.��

The post Exploring the K-12 Bond Market: Quarter 2 Updates and a Preview of the Upcoming Opportunities for 2026 appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post Exploring the K-12 Bond Market: Quarter 2 Updates and a Preview of the Upcoming Opportunities for 2026 appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By Paul Choquette III

It is a difficult time to run an American college or university. Challenges lurk around every corner: there’s policy uncertainty in Washington, with ��financial impacts,��changes to U.S. demographics could cause changes to enrollment trends–not to mention the����associated with a degree.��

This broader environment makes it far more challenging for administrators to��win what is rapidly becoming a fierce competition for student attention and enrollment as they����than ever before.��Schools��with��modern, updated��and��amenitized��physical infrastructure��—��facilities and housing alike��—��are best equipped to��win this competition and��manage the current��and forthcoming��challenges facing the sector.��

Given the tough financial climate, that might seem like bad news, but that misses a truly exciting trend in the industry: schools can engage in public-private partnerships (P3) with��integrated, experienced firms to reduce costs, deliver projects at speed and scale, and��bring an adaptable model to position��themselves for success.����

The Student Housing Supply Crisis

Let’s start by looking at student housing.��There��is an extreme mismatch between supply and demand��on America’s campuses.����The��top 175 American universities had����of students on campus in 2025. The situation is not much��better off-campus, with��the overwhelming majority of��privately-owned, purpose-built student housing near campuses��.��

This drives prices up even as students expect��innovative amenities on��campus.��

Gone are the days of the traditional dorm, with preferring that arrangement. Instead, students increasingly want single rooms or apartment-style living, coupled with social programming to foster a meaningful sense of connection. This no longer applies to just undergraduates or underclassmen: upper-division students also want to live on campus.��

Demographic Shifts and Rising Competition

It’s also worth considering the upcoming demographic changes coming to the sector, with the number of American high school ��and projected to decline for the next 16 years.����

This tells us that there could be some demand relief to a��housing submarket with no current vacancy. It also��reinforces��that institutions will now find themselves subjected to far more competition for student attention��and dollars.��

The P3 Model as a Strategic Solution

That’s where the P3 model comes in. This is the work done each day at Gilbane, which helped colleges and universities renovate or create 16,000 modern student beds last year alone, ranking us as a ��and��the�� in the nation.��

The primary issue to solve is, as usual, financial. But there is also urgency. These projects must be delivered against academic schedules and conducted in a rapidly evolving landscape for students and administrators.��

That’s why Gilbane created a design-build-finance-operate-maintain model: it allows the company to accelerate schedules, support long-term accountability and save schools money. Under this model, Gilbane manages the entire construction and development process from start to finish. It also handles the long-term operation of the facilities themselves — creating one point of accountability.��

The model works.����

Case Study: Palm Beach Atlantic University

Consider Palm Beach Atlantic University (PBAU), where Gilbane is ��with a new, 25-story mixed-use residence hall. The partnership is creating 990 new student beds, and generating new dining, health,��recreation��and parking facilities.����

The best part of this endeavor, however, is��that it�� while correcting outdated master leasing agreements that were preventing PBAU from retaining housing, dining and parking revenue. Gilbane broke ground several months ago and will be finished ahead of the 2027-28 academic year.��

Expanding Beyond Housing

The Gilbane P3 model brings expanded solutions to existing educational clients and helps those higher institutions deliver more than housing. The power of this approach can help universities with projects that may require complex phasing, long-term operating plans and coordination with multiple stakeholders.��

At the University of South Carolina (USC), for example, the P3 model is supporting a new home for the School of Medicine on its emerging Health Sciences Campus. Through this vertically-integrated approach, Gilbane brought predictability to USC and state-of-the-art classrooms, research labs, medical simulation spaces, a health-science library and event spaces, creating a new a permanent downtown health sciences campus for the University.��

A Path Forward for Colleges and Universities

College — and the built environment that shapes it — is changing quickly, and so are student (and parent) expectations. But as each of these transformational developments demonstrates, solutions to these complex problems do exist. Better yet, those solutions can be executed without additional strain on already-strapped financials. ��

Paul Choquette III, a fifth-generation member of the Gilbane family, serves as Regional President for Gilbane Building and leads the firm’s national Public-Private Partnership (P3) strategy.

Read the full article in the Higher Education Issue of 91��Ƶ.

The post How Universities Can Compete for Students in a Changing Landscape appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post How Universities Can Compete for Students in a Changing Landscape appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By Henry Weinberg, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, and Laura Rushfeldt, AIA, LEED AP

Humans have an innate desire to connect with nature, yet we spend��nearly 90 percent��of our lives indoors. In academic settings, where students learn,��live��and socialize, this disconnect can have real consequences for focus, mental��health��and well-being. Mass timber construction offers a powerful way to bring the warmth,��texture��and psychological benefits of nature indoors, while also advancing sustainability goals and, in many cases, matching or outperforming traditional steel construction on cost.����

A growing body of research shows that biophilic design, the integration of natural elements, particularly wood, into the built environment can improve cognitive performance, creativity and mood while reducing stress and fatigue. Spaces that incorporate visible wood elements are consistently perceived as warmer and more welcoming, fostering social interaction and a stronger sense of belonging. For higher education institutions focused on student wellness and community-building, these qualities are increasingly viewed as essential.��

CBT Architects is applying these principles at��Cornell University’s Maplewood Graduate Housing Phase II, a new off-campus residential community designed to house 800 graduate students. At the center of the project is a freestanding��Community Center, referred to as the Clubhouse, conceived as the social and programmatic “heart” of the development. Entirely constructed from mass timber, the pavilion-style building��demonstrates��how biophilia, sustainability and cost responsibility can align.��

The 11,000-square-foot, single-story Clubhouse will��consolidate��wellness and community programs into a single central location, becoming a highly visible show point and social hub for leisure and connection.����A floor-to-ceiling window wall wraps the public areas and reinforces the project’s strong indoor-outdoor connections by offering unobstructed views of the surrounding landscape and flooding the interior with daylight.��Adjacent to��the building, a generous spill-out terrace supports��indoor-outdoor��dining,��events��and daily relaxation—further strengthening the connection between architecture and nature.��

The Biophilic Advantage of Mass Timber��

Utilizing approximately��84 cubic meters��of mass timber, including glue-laminated (glu-lam) columns and beams and cross-laminated timber (CLT) ceiling panels, the fully exposed structural elements allow occupants to experience the material directly, visually,��spatially��and emotionally.��

This exposure is key to maximizing biophilic��benefit. Unlike steel, which typically requires layers of fireproofing and finish materials, mass timber can remain visible, allowing its natural grain,��color��and texture to define the interior character. The result is a simpler, thinner assembly made up of fewer materials, reducing embodied carbon while enhancing aesthetic impact.��

By centralizing both community programming and mass timber construction into the Clubhouse, the design��consolidates��benefits for all residents. Rather than spreading timber features thinly across multiple buildings, the project achieves maximum impact with a focused investment, creating a shared social hub where biophilic design is experienced daily.��

Rethinking the Cost Conversation��

One of the most persistent misconceptions about mass timber is cost. While early projects carried premiums tied to perceived risk and uncertainty around emerging building systems, as well as limited supply, market conditions have shifted rapidly. As more manufacturers come online and design teams gain experience, mass timber is increasingly achieving cost��parity with, and in some cases outperforming, traditional steel construction.��

At Maplewood, the design and construction team conducted side-by-side cost analyses of steel and mass timber structural systems at multiple design milestones. The results consistently showed comparable material and construction costs. Several factors influenced this��outcome-.����

First, the Clubhouse’s modest scale made it less efficient for steel fabrication shops, while mass timber providers, particularly those��seeking��to expand in the Northeast, were eager to deliver a highly visible, proven project. Competitive bidding at one pricing milestone showed mass timber coming in lower than steel.��

Second,��designing for��mass timber from day one allowed the team to��optimize��the building around material efficiencies. As a single-story, Type V structure with a��relatively small��footprint, the building does not��require��a fire-rated ceiling assembly. This enabled the use of 3-ply CLT panels instead of thicker 5- or 7-ply assemblies, reducing material volume and cost.��

Third, efficient structural spans further streamlined construction. Glu-lam elements are spaced at 15 feet on center, allowing simple one-way spanning without the need for deeper primary framing elements such as girders. This structural clarity simplified mechanical distribution, reduced coordination complexity, and supported faster installation—delivering schedule efficiencies alongside cost control.��

Finally, pricing stability played a role. Steel costs are historically volatile, influenced by global demand,��tariffs��and energy prices. Mass timber pricing, by comparison, has tended to be steadier, offering owners greater predictability during design and procurement.��

Henry Weinberg, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, is an Associate Principal at CBT Architects.

Laura Rushfeldt, AIA, LEED AP, is an Associate Principal at CBT Architects.

Read more and see additional project images in the 2026 Higher Education issue of 91��Ƶ.

The post Mass Timber as a Catalyst for Biophilic, Sustainable Campus Design appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post Mass Timber as a Catalyst for Biophilic, Sustainable Campus Design appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

By Lindsey Coulter��

Higher education construction is entering a period defined by financial pressure, shifting enrollment patterns and rising expectations around sustainability and student experience. Institutions are reevaluating how capital projects support long-term value,��flexibility��and campus identity, while navigating cost volatility and complex stakeholder demands. In this environment, the owner’s��representative��perspective is increasingly critical to project success.����

George Swetz,��Executive Vice President and General Manager��of Skanska Integrated Solutions,��has served in this critical role across multiple high-profile projects and��is well versed in��guiding institutions through these challenges.��Swetz��brings more than four decades of experience across program management,��construction��and real estate to higher education projects, and spoke with 91��Ƶ (SCN)��about��how colleges and universities are prioritizing investments, managing��risk��and aligning capital projects with institutional goals. His perspective as an owner’s representative offers a behind-the-scenes view of decision-making, emphasizing long-term value, stakeholder��alignment��and financial stewardship.��

SCN:��Which types of projects are receiving the most investment today, and why?��

Swetz:��Some of the investments we see today are in projects that support student wellness, institutional��identity��and campus vitality. Facilities like the Brimmer and May School New Recreation & Wellness Center in Newton, Mass., as well as the College of the Holy Cross Hart Center at the Luth Athletic Complex reflect a growing emphasis on athletics, health, and student wellbeing as core components of the academic experience.����

Cultural and academic investments such as the Williams College Museum of Art have��demonstrated��how institutions are also reinvesting in assets that support teaching, community engagement, and donor interest. In each case, these projects are about strengthening the full campus, not just adding space. As��owner’s��reps, Skanska helps institutions prioritize investments that align their mission, student��impact��and long-term financial stewardship.��

SCN:��How are enrollment trends and evolving academic programs influencing capital planning decisions?��

Swetz:��Fluctuating enrollment and evolving academic priorities are pushing institutions to be more strategic in capital planning. This is where Skanska gets to help translate institutional priorities into capital plans that��remain��resilient as students’ needs and programming evolve. Owners are increasingly tapping us to better understand how they can focus on buildings that can serve multiple functions and adapt over time rather than highly specialized,��single use��spaces. At the College of the Holy Cross Hart Center at the Luth Athletic Complex, the integration of practice facilities, sports medicine, strength��training��and shared meeting spaces reflects that need for multifunctional programming. Similarly, the Williams College Museum of Art supports academic instruction,��research��and public engagement within one flexible cultural facility.����

SCN:��How are institutions structuring partnerships to better manage risk and control costs?��

Swetz:��Institutions are placing greater emphasis on stakeholder engagement. Including faculty, athletics leadership, facilities teams, and administration has become essential to managing the project, but also its reputation.��Owner’s representatives��act as the central liaison, ensuring feedback is translated into clear project direction and risks are addressed early. This approach helps owners��maintain��control while avoiding costly changes or reputational damage.����

SCN:��With continued cost volatility in materials and labor, what strategies are helping institutions��maintain��project budgets?��

Swetz:��Early planning and proactive cost management are critical in today’s uncertain market.��Owner’s��reps��rely��heavily on early cost modeling and tracking during preconstruction. Disciplined��change��management with the general contractor is also key to protecting budgets. The goal is not just to stay on budget today but also to avoid decisions that create financial strain on the customer.����

SCN:��Where are you finding opportunities to achieve long-term operational savings?��

Swetz:��Long-term operational savings are often realized through early design decisions. Investments in efficient mechanical systems, durable materials and programs that are the��appropriate size��can significantly reduce lifecycle costs. The Brimmer and May Recreation & Wellness Center reflects how facilities that are focused on wellness can also be designed for high performance and long-term efficiency. At the Williams College Museum of Art, Skanska is embedding sustainability through Passive House design principles and��additional��strategies that track toward Living Building Challenge certification, setting��a strong foundation��for long-term energy and operational savings. We have a team of dedicated sustainability experts who are supporting this and can help institutions evaluate these types of decisions through a lifecycle lens, not just cost.��

SCN:��How are life-cycle cost analyses influencing material selection and long-term campus planning?��

Swetz:��Lifecycle cost analysis is increasingly central to how institutions evaluate materials and overall projects. Owners��are weighing��long term maintenance and energy performance alongside��initial��construction costs. At the Williams College Museum of Art, this perspective��impacts��decisions around architectural quality and operational efficiency. At the College of the Holy Cross Hart Center at the Luth Athletic Complex, life-cycle evaluation is especially important given the intensity of use in athletics and training spaces.��

Read more in the Higher Education issue of 91��Ƶ.

The post Owner’s Rep George Swetz of Skanska on Navigating Risk, Cost and Change in Higher Ed Construction appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

The post Owner’s Rep George Swetz of Skanska on Navigating Risk, Cost and Change in Higher Ed Construction appeared first on 91��Ƶ.