Up or Out

Available land is becoming scarce in many communities and the cost of land and quality school buildings continue to rise. Demand for ballfields is at an all-time high, communities have a growing awareness of the value of green space, and school systems are more aware than ever of energy efficiency and long-term building maintenance costs.

It is no surprise, then, that communities are looking more closely at whether to build up or out — whether to build multistory schools or single-story schools. Many arguments are put forward as to why multi-story schools might have cost and environmental advantages, but where is the data? In an effort to contribute data-based information to this discussion, Grimm +Parker Architects undertook a study to compare construction costs, life cycle costs, environmental impact and other factors important to communities struggling with this choice.

We established a model grounded in reality: a real site —Stafford County, Va: a prototypical elementary school easily adapted to both single-story and multi-story options; and operation and maintenance numbers from similar schools in the local district. The numbers produced are in many ways specific to this site and building, but we believe they are typical enough that data trends can be extrapolated to similar facilities.

Our model school was designed to accommodate 600 students in grades PreK-5, with 66,550 square feet of net usable area. The gross square footage of the single-story option was 89,511 and for the two-story option, 91,431, owing to required stairwells and elevator.

The Results?

Land area for building footprint:
67 percent greater for the one-story model

Impervious Area:
30,660 square feet more for the one-story model, producing over 19,000 gallons more storm water run-off than the two-story model

Cost of Construction:
The two-story model had higher costs for stairs, elevator, and structural framing; but those costs were more than offset by the single-story’s higher costs for exterior envelope (roof and wall), utility excavation and SWM, grading and foundations.

Professional cost estimators calculated the one-story model to be close to $1 million more than the two-story option. This estimate did not include land costs, but included a “land premium” for the additional land needed for the one-story model, based on land costs in the region, which added $66,500.

Life Cycle Cost:
Over the 30-year life cycle, the two-story option’s initial cost savings of almost $1 million grew to over $2.1 million. Note that Stafford County is fortunate to have low energy costs, averaging between $1.10 and $1.20 per square foot of building area, so these numbers will vary depending on regional energy costs. Higher energy costs will lead to greater life cycle cost savings in the multi-story model.

Some factors that must be considered were difficult to quantify, like:

  • the cost of maintaining storm water management structures;
  • the greater availability of usable sites and flexibility for building orientation when a smaller footprint is used;
  • the value of using less land for the building, thereby having more green space or ball fields and reduced water runoff into neighboring streams; and
  • shorter travel times in the two-story option, which might increase time for learning yet introduce obstacles to those with mobility impairments.

On balance, there are many cost, operational, and environmental benefits to multi-story schools. Although we looked at a specific elementary school example, it is reasonable to speculate that middle and high schools would reap the same benefits on a larger scale. It is important to note that the study confirms our real-world experience based on schools of 60,000 square foot or more, but it is also our experience that smaller buildings of less than 60,000 square foot may see reduced or even no cost benefits with a multi-story option.

Differing community values and different specific conditions make it unreasonable to state that multi-story solutions are always the best solution. However, the cost data and environmental benefits advocate strongly for communities and school districts to consider multi-story solutions for their new school buildings.

The full study and data results are available at www.grimmandparker.com

This article originally appeared in the issue of .

About the Author

John Hill, AIA, REFP is the CEO of Grimm + Parker Architects, a 100-person firm specializing in educational design in the mid-Atlantic region and a member of CEFPI (the Council of Educational Facility Planners International.)

Featured

  • Los Angeles City College Breaks Ground on New Administration, Workforce Building

    Los Angeles City College (LACC) in Los Angeles, Calif., recently broke ground on a new $72-million administrative facility, according to a news release. The Cesar Chavez Administration and Workforce Building will stand four stories, cover 67,230 square feet, and play home to a wide variety of the school’s educational and administrative services.

  • Texas State University Completes Stadium Renovations

    Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas, recently announced that it has completed a series of additions and renovations to its football stadium, according to a news release. Formerly known as the Bobcat Stadium End Zone Complex, the Johnny and Nathali Weisman Football Performance Center is an 85,000-square-foot expansion featuring hospitality spaces, banquet spaces, exterior concourses, and upgrades to the field house.

  • FAU Starts Construction on Holocaust and Jewish Studies Building

    Florida Atlantic University recently began construction on a new academic building for its campus in Boca Raton, Fla., according to university news. The Kurt and Marilyn Wallach Holocaust and Jewish Studies Building will stand two stories, measure in at 22,000 square feet, and play home to the university’s Holocaust education and Jewish studies programs.

  • Empowering People Through Smart, Sustainable Campuses

    Sustainability is facing increasing scrutiny, with some questioning its costs and priorities. Yet for universities, it remains an essential driver of resilience, operational efficiency and long-term competitiveness. At the same time, there is a growing recognition that sustainable transformation is not just about reducing energy consumption and emissions to comply with tightening regulations ‒ it’s about creating vibrant, comfortable environments where people can thrive, innovate and connect. For university leadership, this is a complex balancing act, with rising energy costs and limited budgets only adding to the challenge.

Digital Edition