Every college and university claims to be striving to be sustainable. Two significant obstacles stand in the way: too much space and ineffective management practices.
The most sustainable building is the one that is never built. Unfortunately, most institutions continue to build space they don’t need and can’t afford. Even if these buildings are at the cutting edge of sustainable design, institutions are increasing their carbon footprint problem. Having more bricks than necessary is expensive, regardless of how good those bricks are.
Everyone wants more space, but only occasionally is that appropriate and sustainable. Two articles in the SCUP journal Planning for Higher Education provide insight into these dynamics. Space and Power in the Ivory Tower, by Sandra Blanchette, identifies the challenges in achieving effective space management in the political milieu of the university. New Metrics for the New Normal, by Gregory Janks, Mel Lockhart and Alan Travis, identifies the limitations of current space allocation guidelines. Together they describe an environment with inadequate tools and ineffective decision-making.Space and Power is based on careful study of three northeastern institutions, each of which spoke of “not having enough space.” Blanchette documents a frequent reality: space needs are poorly documented and existing space management processes are ineffective. Instead of not having enough space, it is more likely that units have the wrong space and/or space in the wrong place.
Blanchette rightly focuses on the political nature of institutions as complicit in poor management of campus real estate. In these environments more is always better; loss of any space is anathema; and only new space is sufficiently prestigious to keep up with the competition. In most cases, the demand for more space overwhelms the rational analysis of real needs. As a result capital plans are seldom much more than politically correct wish lists.
New Metrics identifies systemic flaws in existing space management guidelines. The report documents analysis of the 35 campuses of the University of Georgia System. The most critical is the realization that standard facilities inventory systems “poorly reflect modern space usage patterns…as spaces become more flexible, these metrics … overstate need.” Despite a number of legacy conditions and unique campus histories, study shows that “…many institutions function reasonably well with far less space [than some] guidelines recommend.”
So let’s see if we have this right… the systems used don’t produce accurate results, and even if they did the institution wouldn’t use the results effectively. This might have been good enough in the ‘golden age’ of higher education that has passed away, but it is not sustainable.
Sustainability – Higher education is in a triple bottom line business where success is measured by considering the economic, social and environmental outcomes. A more sustainable future is not achieved solely by building better, but by rebuilding and building only what is needed.
Blanchette’s prescriptions involves:
- Establishing a transparent process for space-related decisions,
- Delegating decision-making authority appropriately,
- Designing an effective space committee, and
- Collecting accurate data.
The University of Georgia System approach:
- Acknowledges significant problems with data quality,
- Suggests significant opportunities for improved space utilization,
- Plans to include facility conditions in capital planning models,
- Supports a methodology for day-to-day campus decision making, and
- Lays the foundation for rational data-driven physical planning.
Usually the decks are stacked against both of these commonsense prescriptions. The data-driven approach is doomed by the political reality of ‘course of least resistance’ decision-making. Changing the decision-making process is doomed by fear of upsetting existing balances of power. At this point in the 21st century, the conditions may be sufficiently dire to require institutions to take the medicine.
American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment – At last count, more than 650 institutions have signed the ACUPCC. More than 410 have submitted Climate Action Plans for their campuses to achieve carbon neutrality by a certain date. The average target year is 2050. Despite considerable cultural and fiscal challenges, many institutions are making good progress.
For example, nearly 500 institutions have a policy that all new campus construction will be built to a standard of LEED Silver or equivalent. Renewable sources contribute more than 15% of the energy used by more than 230 colleges and universities. Higher education institutions continue to lead the nation in recycling programs.
These steps and many others throughout the country are headed in the right direction. The pace however slow is gaining momentum, but an underlying reality remains. Unneeded space is economically and environmentally expensive.
In the disruptive environment of digital transformation and declining public funding, institutions that are more effective in matching needs and expenditures will have competitive advantages. These two SCUP articles provide valuable advice for those institutions that recognize the need to move from the status quo. Not only will they be able to offer a superior education at a lower cost, but also they will be doing it in a manner that can more accurately be said to be sustainable.
Share this:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
I am going to steal this: “So let’s see if we have this right… the systems used don’t produce accurate results, and even if they did the institution wouldn’t use the results effectively. This might have been good enough in the ‘golden age’ of higher education that has passed away, but it is not sustainable.”
Thank you for bring even more value from the two articles, by comparing them side by side, and looking for those important connections.
Zing! Michael, great job of helping communicate the root problem. We are too often guilty in higher ed of treating the symptom vs. cause. This is especially apparent when considering the compendium of space and sustainability, which are typically independently evaluated. By redefining (expanding) the extents of our analysis to include both bricks and mortar AND management/operation, we will better define the problem and ultimately effect better outcomes. Kudos on raising awareness to the issue and linking the discourse on the subject!
I agree. The institution is centrally funded and the hard work of setting priorities is done by dividing up the budget by colleges and central units. However, the other prioritizing decisions, as you stated, are made in “management” style (not focusing on long term issues) and not “leadership” style. This will continue to work in the manner that the institution moves from priority to priority only through some sort of pressure or pain. Perhaps the ability to see the train in the distance, is not yet enough urgency to get us to move off the tracks, we have to see the face of the driver to be spurred to action.
Michael, Basically I agree with your tenents but fundamental to good utilization of space is that …as long as it is a free good (or perceived that way by the occupant) there is little incentive to be judicious with the “ask” or the “take” of space. When the state of Ohio stopped giving insitutions $$ for operating costs associated with new buildings in the mid ’90’s, THE Ohio State University passed those costs to the occupants of new buildings in a limited but significant way. This created a conversation about how the unit was going to fund the repairs and maintenance in the future. Immediately the units became more aware of the cost of their project. And in my observation, became more conservative in their “ask” and “take”. We even saw units use their existing space more efficiently (e.g. storage rooms cleaned out and utilized for programmatic uses). so….. as long as everyone wants to teach from 10-2/M-Th, efficiency in the classroom will remain low. …as long as there is no centralization of conference/seminar rooms for scheduling, the efficiency in use will remain low.
On the flip side, you cannot hold an English class on the Archery field, so there are some very unique characteristics to our classrooms that make for built-in inefficiencies. These inefficiencies are not always appreciated by others.
Jill, totally with you. Treat all space as if it is a hired rather than free good, been doing that here at Otago ( New Zealand) for over 20 yrs – all dept space is charged an internal rent that includes building depreciation, repairs & maintenance, and which varies depending on type ( ie office v lab). Treat lectures theatres and seminar rooms the same – charged on class size. The tough task is that the space freed up isn’t usually where you want it and to make real savings occassionally you need some major relocations and that back to politics!!
As Sandra learned from her research, having a clearly defined process is essential in resolving issues of space demand and supply. An effective process may include: (1) a provost level staff person who works directly with department managers and whose primary role is to make recommendations regarding space allocation, (2) a higher level committee including the provost, vice presidents for finance, administration and facilities, and campus architect/planner that provides planning and approvals, and (3) an engaged trustee committee on buildings and grounds that provides leadership and oversight. However, an effective process requires creative problem solving. One example: emeritus faculty who want to maintain their campus office after retirement. A department chair may be unwilling to “evict” an eminent colleague while struggling to find office space for newly minted professors or new hires. One university solved this problem by providing a suite of semi-private emeritus faculty offices in a near campus location for a limited term. Acceptance of this provision was written into the retirement agreement. Do others have creative solutions that we may learn from?
I agree with some of the points highlighted in the article, but I also find some information to which I do not agree. For instance, I do not believe that universities are “space hogs,” as the writer asserts. Yes, there are efficiencies that can be gained by utilizing spaces more appropriately and the existing standards are undeniably outdated. However, to conclude that institutions of higher education do not require new buildings or new construction is to ignore many acute issues facing institutions such as the University of Georgia. For example, the solution to space inefficiencies identified in the article is not to cut off the funding pipeline for new buildings. Rather, it is to encourage the simultaneous renovation of existing space to new standards and new sustainable guidelines and continuing to build desperately needed space such as laboratories, is a more measured approach.
I really appreciate the thoughtful comments related to my article, “Space and Power in the Ivory Tower.” I have been looking forward to feedback on my research from professionals in the field. While I identified three basic space challenges on campus: quality, location, and quantity, my primary point related to “knowing your space challenge” so you can make decisions based on that information. I don’t necessarily believe that universities are “space hogs”, but I do believe that some units on campus hog space and thus restrict limited space from being used efficiently. My research did indicate that laboratories were often outdated and many new buildings were focused on new science space. One benefit of having a new building on campus is that it gives decision makers an opportunity to re-visualize the vacated space and reorganize units if they have the political will, an opportunity that doesn’t come around too often in higher education.
Thought you all might find this article of interest –
http://www.bdcnetwork.com/trends-report-new-facilities-enhance-quality-campus-life
Pingback: The Paradox of the 21st Century Campus | Campus Matters