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 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.