Higher Ed is Betting on New Buildings While Quietly Undermining Their Campuses — Here’s Why
Higher education institutions are navigating one of the most complex planning environments in recent history. Many are confronting enrollment volatility, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, and rising construction costs, all while feeling pressured to launch high-visibility academic, STEM, and student life programs.
Leadership understandably wants to invest in initiatives that strengthen reputation and attract students. But often, the available campus space that appears suitable for expansion proves to be technically or financially unviable; infrastructure constraints are underestimated; renovation costs rival new construction; and power and data capacity fall short of today’s requirements. By the time these realities become apparent, the design process may have already begun.
In this climate, the owner’s representative has changed from a delivery-focused advisor to a strategic campus partner. Institutions are increasingly relying on owner’s reps not just to manage, cope, schedule, and budget, but also help evaluate whether a project should proceed at all.
Enrollment Challenges and Financial Realities
Over the past two to three years, enrollment drivers have significantly shifted. Many institutions are discovering that actual enrollment numbers are not aligning with earlier growth projections. Projects that were initially envisioned to accommodate expanding student populations are being paused or reconsidered.
Two factors have had particularly significant impacts: student debt and volatility surrounding international student visas. Some institutions experienced enrollment reductions by as much as 30% in 2025 due to international students not receiving visas to enter the United States. Because international students often pay full tuition, their enrollment materially affects institutional revenue. That revenue supports financial aid, program expansion, and operations. A reduction of that magnitude can translate into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue, depending on the institution's size.
At the same time, advancements in science and technology are occurring rapidly. Institutions with science and technology programs must remain competitive and attractive to prospective students.
For those already facing enrollment pressures, the need to invest in cutting-edge facilities creates additional strain.
The result is a difficult balancing act as institutions must manage uncertainty in revenue while investing in infrastructure capable of supporting fast-changing programs.
The Complexities of Growth
Campus growth is rarely a blank-slate exercise. Most campuses have evolved over the decades through incremental decisions. Buildings have been added to address immediate needs, infrastructure was expanded in phases, and deferred maintenance accumulated quietly.
Higher ed often prioritizes revenue-generating or reputation-enhancing programs. However, the physical realities of existing buildings can complicate these ambitions. An “available” building may lack sufficient structural capacity for lab equipment, renovation costs may approach or exceed the cost of new construction, and infrastructure systems may be nearing the end of their lives.
Working within older buildings also introduces spatial limitations that are not always obvious at first glance. Limited floor-to-ceiling heights can significantly affect how spaces function. Careful coordination of above-ceiling mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems is required to optimize every inch of available height. Some lab spaces require substantial overhead equipment, which can be difficult to accommodate within tight ceiling conditions. Existing structural systems, such as waffle slabs, may require more deliberate coordination of floor boxes and utilities. These constraints directly affect how flexible or programmatically robust a space can become.
Owner’s reps bring value by looking at the institutions from two perspectives. They become embedded partners, working closely with campus leadership yet maintaining a broad, objective view. This vantage point allows owner’s reps to pause and evaluate long-term implications. It is often easier to identify short-term solutions that feel adequate in the moment. Their role is to assess whether those solutions optimize campus utilization and growth over time.
Surprising Infrastructure Limits
Infrastructure constraints frequently become the most significant obstacles to campus expansion.
Maintaining or replacing infrastructure to meet energy efficiency and sustainability goals often requires holistic upgrades. For example, replacing a gas chiller with an electric chiller may necessitate replacing the equipment itself and upgrading the supporting electrical infrastructure.
The growing interest in artificial intelligence programs introduces even greater complexity, as it requires significant power. Conversations around AI integration often include discussions about building or expanding power generation capacity, whether on or off campus. Supporting AI may demand entirely new data centers, and integrating it into academic programs means substantial investment in both infrastructure and equipment.
Even without AI, campus siting decisions—where a new building is physically located on campus—can create cascading consequences. A campus might identify a power source with sufficient capacity on the opposite side of campus and plan to trench across the site to support a new building. If future projects are planned near that power source, capacity may again become constrained. Decisions made for one project can unintentionally limit future flexibility.
Deferred maintenance also plays a growing role. Institutions are increasingly focused on “must-haves” rather than “nice-to-haves.” Financial expenditures are scrutinized carefully. In this environment, unresolved infrastructure problems can become deal-breakers.
Strategic Oversight from Day One
Traditionally, owner’s reps were engaged to monitor project delivery and advocate for the institution during construction. Today, their role begins much earlier.
Owner’s reps are typically involved at a project’s inception. During these early discussions, they work with stakeholders to define purpose, budget, timeline, and metrics for success. They analyze market trends and cost data, evaluate permitting requirements, assess long-lead items, and study phasing and logistics before design consultants are engaged.
Once design partners are selected, feasibility analysis deepens. For renovation projects, structural engineers assess whether existing structures can support specialized equipment. When densifying floors or changing building use, owner’s reps evaluate whether plumbing systems can support increased bathroom counts, whether additional fixtures are required by code, and whether infrastructure capacity can handle higher occupant loads. These considerations often emerge when institutions seek to increase utilization within existing buildings.
Throughout concept and schematic design, owner’s reps continually validate assumptions. By the time a project reaches 100% schematic design, budget and feasibility concerns should have already been addressed, code requirements are understood, and bidding approaches are defined with long-lead equipment in mind.
Reaching this milestone without major resets reflects disciplined early-stage oversight. Without it, projects can advance far into design before fatal issues emerge, leading to costly redesigns or relocations.
Renovation vs. Replacement
When feasible, renovating existing space is a generally sound practice. However, institutions must objectively evaluate whether renovation truly meets programmatic and infrastructure requirements.
Common challenges include insufficient power or data capacity for modern learning environments, buildings unable to support lab loads or specialized HVAC systems, and building placement decisions that disrupt pedestrian circulation, accessibility, or campus operations.
Value Engineering with Long-Term Vision
Value engineering is unavoidable in today’s higher education projects. Risks arise when cost-cutting decisions are made reactively and without understanding their long-term operational impacts. Everyone wants the latest, most state-of-the-art spaces, until they see the expensive price tag. It’s the role of an owner’s rep to help them best evaluate their needs versus their wants and deliver them the project that best meets their goals.
Value engineering choices can create significant ongoing challenges. For example, opting for wireless instead of hard-wired devices like card readers might achieve savings upfront. However, this can have a long-term operational impact, leaving facilities teams constantly managing battery replacements. In another instance, wired overhead lighting in student residences was eliminated in favor of plug-in lamps, but students moved or removed them, creating complaints and reducing usable power outlets. Eliminating floor boxes in classrooms resulted in students clustering near perimeter outlets, while conferencing required extension cords that posed tripping hazards and created an unprofessional environment.
These cases illustrate how short-term savings can result in long-term inefficiencies. Owner’s reps help institutions distinguish between discretionary elements and critical investments that support durability, operations, and user experience.
Planning for an Uncertain Academic Landscape
The higher ed landscape is changing quickly as pedagogy, technology, and delivery models evolve.
Flexibility is central to planning today. Classrooms and labs are designed to accommodate reconfiguration, and large rooms may be planned for future subdivision, with electrical, HVAC, IT, and egress systems designed accordingly. Smart building controls may include open data points to support future AI integration.
AI has had one of the most significant impacts on science and technology-focused institutions. The pressure to integrate it has accelerated capital planning timelines faster than any other pedagogical shift in recent years, and institutions are reacting quickly to remain competitive.
Simultaneously, many campuses are adopting a more holistic approach to master planning. Some are centralizing energy plants to source more sustainable energy, while others are exploring solar farms to offset carbon usage or planning a centralized data center to support current and future technology demands.
What Institutions Could Regret
In five to ten years, institutions that pursue AI integration without planning for sustainable power demands may face difficult consequences. The infrastructure investment required is significant, as are the costs to power and maintain them, and long-term feasibility and sustainability must be considered at the outset.
Institutions may also regret not addressing policy changes that affect enrollment, particularly regarding international student visas. If barriers persist, these students may choose not to study in the United States, impacting tuition revenue and institutional stability.
The Role of the Owner's Rep
As campuses become more complex, the role of the owner’s rep will continue to evolve. They are needed to help institutions navigate volatile enrollment trends while advising on how to allocate limited resources effectively. Owners face tighter budgets, shortened timelines, changing technologies, and tough competition.
Staying informed about emerging technologies like AI and understanding shifts in pedagogy will be essential. Owner’s reps are responsible for aligning mission with feasibility, ensuring that capital investments support both immediate needs and long-term resilience.
In this era defined by constrained budgets and heightened expectations, successful campus planning depends on partners who can truly see the whole picture. Institutions that engage owner’s reps as early as possible gain clearer prioritization, fewer surprises, and stronger alignment between vision and reality.