Striking a Balance: The Keys to Renovating Science Education Buildings for the 21st Century
- By William Cox, Pete Uhing, PE, WELL AP
- 03/13/25
University of Nebraska-Omaha Durham Science Center (Photo: Tom Kessler Photography)
Renovating science education facilities is a complex challenge that requires balancing budget constraints, modern pedagogical demands, and long-term sustainability. The recent renovation of the Durham Science Center at the University of Nebraska-Omaha (UNO) provides a roadmap for facilities managers facing similar challenges. This article explores the process and draws lessons for stakeholders in planning, designing, and managing educational facilities.
The Challenge: Aging Infrastructure and Modern Needs
Science education buildings constructed in past decades often struggle to support modern academic programs effectively. The UNO Durham Science Center, with over 164,000 square feet, faced several pressing issues:
- Outdated Facilities: Classrooms and laboratories failed to align with contemporary pedagogical practices and academic technologies, hindering active learning and student engagement.
- Mechanical Deficiencies: Aging mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems led to inefficiencies and escalating maintenance costs.
- Code Compliance: Safety and accessibility codes required updates, including smoke control in the atrium, restroom accessibility, and fire suppression systems.
- Stakeholder Dissatisfaction: Students, faculty, and staff demanded a better environment for teaching, learning, and research.
In addition to addressing building-related challenges, the university navigated the constraints of a limited budget for the renovation project. The initial proposal included a comprehensive wish list that far exceeded the available funding, necessitating tough decisions about project scope. While the primary focus was on essential infrastructure upgrades, the university recognized the importance of incorporating aesthetic enhancements to demonstrate the value of the investment visibly. The project's key challenge was striking the balance between functional, behind-the-scenes improvements, and visually impactful upgrades.
The Solution: Prioritizing Scope and Engaging Stakeholders
To address these challenges, the Clark & Enersen architecture and engineering design team implemented a strategic approach centered on open communication, careful prioritization, and stakeholder collaboration.
1) Communication and Budget Alignment
From the outset, the design team established clear communication channels with stakeholders to align project scope with budget constraints. Open communication ensured transparency and helped build trust among the university's leadership, faculty, and maintenance teams.
2) Prioritization of Needs
Key to the project's success was identifying non-negotiable, "required" scope items. For the UNO Durham Science Center, these included:
- Replace 13 aging air handling units with modern, efficient units.
- Upgrade the building exhaust system with code-compliant laboratory exhaust fans, including heat recovery systems, to improve energy efficiency.
- Renovate the atrium to comply with current building codes, resolve vestibule pressurization challenges, and create new, informal student study spaces.
- Enhance code compliance through key upgrades, including new gas shutoff valves, fire suppression standpipes, and updated restroom facilities.
The architecture and engineering design team also classified "high priority" scope items, focusing on targeted upgrades that would significantly impact users and operational efficiency.
- Modernize teaching classrooms with state-of-the-art academic technology and flexible designs to support current and future pedagogies.
- Replace outdated fume hoods in high-use laboratories to enhance safety and functionality for students.
- Execute targeted laboratory renovations designed to optimize space utilization and support academic demands.
By carefully defining required and high-priority scope items, the project team efficiently identified achievable solutions within the available budget.
3) Collaboration with Construction Managers at Risk (CM@R)
Selecting the CM@R, McCarthy Building Companies, simultaneously with the design team allowed for coordinated efforts in budget development, scope prioritization, and construction logistics. The team evaluated options during the design process to establish which ideas maximized value to users at minimal cost. This collaborative approach enabled effective management of the additional scope items during construction.
An example of this approach was the replacement of the building's aging air handling units. The team explored multiple options, including a one-for-one replacement within existing penthouses, consolidating penthouses to reduce the number of units, and constructing new penthouses to minimize the total number of units while improving system layout and functionality. Through a comprehensive evaluation of constructability, cost, and long-term maintenance benefits, the CM@R and design team determined that constructing new penthouses provided the most cost-effective solution, simplified construction, and improved accessibility for ongoing system operations — ultimately delivering the most value to the university.
4) Engaging Stakeholders
To ensure the design addressed user needs, the team:
- Established a design committee with faculty representatives.
- Hosted consistent user meetings for scope prioritization and design feedback.
- Coordinated with maintenance staff to retain existing infrastructure where possible.
- Facilitated spot replacements for existing piping and ductwork during construction.
The project maintained buy-in and minimized disruptions by engaging all stakeholders from the start of the design process through construction completion.
The Results: Transforming the UNO Durham Science Center
The renovation successfully addressed the building's shortcomings, delivering outcomes that exceeded stakeholder expectations while adhering to budgetary constraints.
Infill of 2nd floor in former atrium space
(Photo: Tom Kessler Photography)
1) Upgraded Mechanical Systems
The new air handling units and heat recovery systems significantly improved the building's operational effectiveness. High-plume exhaust systems replaced outdated indoor fans, improving laboratory safety and air quality.
2) Code Compliance and Safety
Infilling the second floor eliminated the need for smoke control equipment in the lobby and ensured compliance with fire codes. Installing fire suppression standpipes in stairwells and upgraded restroom facilities helped meet accessibility standards.
3) Improved Educational Facilities
Teaching classrooms were modernized to support active learning methodologies, enhancing student engagement and outcomes. New study spaces on each floor provided collaborative environments for students.
Active learning classroom before (left) and after (right) (Photo: Tom Kessler Photography)
4) Aesthetic and Functional Upgrades
Circulation spaces received updated finishes, ceilings, and lighting, creating a welcoming environment. Laboratory upgrades improved safety in teaching spaces while expanding research capabilities. Building MEP upgrades improved the maintainability of existing and new systems.
These changes extended the building's life and provided a superior educational environment, supporting the UNO Durham Science Center's mission.
Kris Montgomery, vice president and business unit leader for McCarthy Building Companies, reflected on the project's success: "Working alongside our design partners at Clark & Enersen, the team quickly identified and aligned the goals of the university to prioritize the needs of the facility within the available budget for the project. The focus on partnership and collaboration resulted in a final project outcome that was under budget and ahead of schedule. No easy feat for a tough renovation in an occupied facility!"
Lessons Learned: A Blueprint for Success
The UNO Durham Science Center renovation offers valuable insights for educational facilities managers:
- Establish Clear Communication: Early and ongoing communication with stakeholders is essential to manage expectations and build consensus.
- Prioritize Impactful Changes: Focus on scope items that address critical deficiencies and deliver maximum value within budget constraints.
- Leverage Collaboration: Engaging a CM@R early in the process fosters coordination, reduces risks, and enhances project outcomes.
- Engage Stakeholders: Continuous involvement of users ensures the design aligns with needs and expected outcomes.
Closing Thoughts
Renovating science education buildings requires more than technical upgrades — it demands a strategic, collaborative approach to balancing functional and aesthetic needs. Facilities managers can create environments that inspire learning and support institutional goals by prioritizing impactful improvements and engaging stakeholders. The UNO Durham Science Center's transformation serves as a testament to the power of thoughtful renovation in shaping the future of education.