By Lindsey Coulter

David Schrader FAIA, A4LE Fellow, LEED AP, is managing partner of SCHRADERGROUP architecture, has spent more than three decades focused on public-interest and education projects. However, Schrader, who is also an Editorial Advisory Board member for ���سԹ� (SCN), believes it has all been very well spent.��

“The planning,��design��and construction process takes time,” Schrader said.��“We��often��say��that��there’s��no such thing as instant gratification in our office.”��

Instead,��for Schrader��the reward comes from looking back at the culmination of a long, deliberate process, where the most gratifying moment is��finally��seeing the smiles on the faces of students, staff, and the community as they walk into��a new environment��for the first time.����

Schrader spoke with SCN��about his design and planning process, how to unite vision and outcome, and��what’s��next for modern learning environments.��

SCN:��What are the most common��disconnects��you see between institutional vision and built outcomes, and how can they be addressed earlier in the process?��

Two distinct failures often occur at the poles of facility planning:��

1. The Trend Trap:Implementing “trendy” concepts simply because they worked elsewhere. Without educator buy-in or a clear pedagogical fit, these features become wasted resources that��fail to��engage students.��
2. The LegacyTrap:��Designing out of comfort. If the planning team��doesn’t��push educators to envision the “next generation” of instruction, the result is a facility that mirrors the past and lacks the tools necessary for future learning.

These extremes can be mitigated through a rigorous, thoughtful engagement strategy:��

• The “What If” Phase:��Expose all stakeholders to high-functioning examples of next-gen learning. This expands the team’s vision of what is possible.��
• Realistic Guardrails:��Collaboratively set limits based on what the academic team will��actually utilize��in their daily practice.��
• Pedagogy First:��When the academic team��establishes��clear educational goals for their tenure before the design begins, the resulting facility��isn’t��just a building—it’s��a durable tool��optimized��for the future of instruction.��

SCN:��How has the integration of engineering, technology, and interdisciplinary coordination changed the way education facilities are designed and delivered?����

The question can be��taken��two ways. One is the effect of technology on the design process, and the other is how the technologies integrated into the facility have changed the design.��

Relative to the design process, BIM models are the tools used for design. Recent integration of energy modeling, daylight analysis and building modeling software have improved the building outcome to such an extent that we know exactly what the building will look like and how it will function (from an energy use perspective). Because many of the models are now hosted on the cloud, design-team members have the ability to continually tweak their portions of the work to improve the design of the facility. Recent influences of AI plug-ins have allowed the exterior and interior views to be tweaked for a location, user and time of year, so the end users can see the facility as if it were being experienced in all seasons.��

Technologies integrated into the facility work much the same for the final built version. The integration of lighting-control systems and building-management software have allowed the buildings to continue to monitor and control their own interior settings to allow for the most efficient and cost effective use. Further audio/visual developments have improved the extent to which a building can be programmed to allow for anytime/anywhere broadcasting of media throughout the facility. ��

A recent project our offices worked on integrated technology such as this so that productions occurring on the stage might be broadcast to any room in the facility, while a lecture occurring in one of the classrooms pertinent to the instruction in other rooms could be selected and presented in those rooms, all broadcast from one space.��

SCN:��Your firm emphasizes a consensus-based planning process��—��what does that look like in practice when working with school districts or higher-ed clients?����

Schrader: Our team’s unique talent lies in creating environments where community input is the cornerstone of design. We recognize that modern educators are master collaborators; our process mirrors their pedagogy. We begin by establishing a shared vocabulary of academic space, then transition into hands-on creative workshops using tactile, modular tools. This inclusive approach empowers educators, students, and administrators to co-author their future. By synthesizing the outcomes of these workshops into actionable design options, we ensure the final concept is truly built by the community for the learner.����

See more of Schrader’s insights, including lessons learned on aligning budget constructions with increasingly complex programmatic and performance expectations, in the upcoming Design & Construction print/digital edition of ���سԹ�, available in July. Subscribe today.

The post Board Member Spotlight: David Schrader on Uniting Design Vision and Outcome, and What’s Next for Modern Learning Environments appeared first on ���سԹ�.

The post Board Member Spotlight: David Schrader on Uniting Design Vision and Outcome, and What’s Next for Modern Learning Environments appeared first on ���سԹ�.

By Lindsey Coulter

Dorian Maness, GGP, is a Senior Project Manager and Mechanical Engineer for the Education Division of Matern Professional Engineering in Maitland, Fla.��Focusing on��project management and mechanical systems design, Maness��delivers��innovative,��tailored��HVAC systems��that allow��students and educators to focus on learning, while giving school leaders operational peace of mind.��

“School environments are often occupied and require continuous, rapid maintenance,” Maness said. “So, there’s a��balance to be struck between what the owner wants, what mechanical system��success��needs to meet the functionality of the school, and what the maintenance team can maintain to ensure the system operates effectively.”����

Maness joined the ���سԹ� (SCN) Editorial Advisory Board in 2025, bringing valuable��expertise��in��engineering and mechanical systems for��K-12 and higher education.��As school facilities must contend with more extreme temperatures, changing codes, shifting maintenance budgets��and��higher��performance expectations, Maness��spoke with SCN about��what it takes to design and deliver systems that work and last.��

SCN:��What’s��your philosophy on balancing performance and cost in HVAC design?��

Maness:��Each project is��unique��and��it’s��critical we have the right conversations to figure out what works within the framework of the project and the owner.��My philosophy breaks down to “Make it make sense.” There is a fine line between the performance��of��a system and the cost of getting that performance out of the system. Clients often approach a project with the notion that they want the highest performance system. However, there is a��[financial]��tradeoff. As an engineer and project manager,��it’s��my job to understand things like budget and Life Cycle Costs to be able to have conversations with the owners or clients to guide them in a way that makes sense for their needs and the needs of their school. Sometimes��I’m��able to design a��cool��high-performance system and give them the most efficient HVAC system,��which can save money over time or get tax rebates for the district. At other times, due to first costs and budget, we must design a more robust system that is more easily��maintained��and that the district is more familiar with.����

SCN:��What innovations in mechanical system design are most promising for schools?��

Maness:��Schools are becoming more complex.��They’re��constantly��changing and��offering many��new programs��that used to be��available��only in colleges or technical schools. Mechanical equipment has become smaller and more powerful, allowing us to support various programming spaces, such as auditoriums, large gymnasiums, welding labs, automotive��labs��and robotics labs. Along with mechanical equipment, innovations in programming and BAS control have also been crucial to the advancement of how mechanical systems��operate. Adjusting to various school loads, allowing owners to see real-time alarms and failures on the equipment, are all innovations that have allowed us to change the way we design schools and give value back to the owners and clients.��

Additionally, in Florida, high temperatures and high humidity will always drive the mechanical system design in schools. Ensuring that the mechanical system has capacity to cool all spaces as required will become more challenging as the climate increasingly gets warmer or stays warmer longer. However, one trend I’ve seen is mechanical equipment becoming more efficient and better at handling high humidity or high temperatures. Utilizing this equipment in newer designs will be crucial to keeping up with future demands.��

SCN:��What’s��a misconception owners often have about mechanical design?��

Maness:��Owners underestimate the cost and space��required��to house mechanical systems. Most owners care��first and foremost��about how their building looks aesthetically, not about the space inside the building that no one sees. Ironically, this is the space that mechanical engineers care about the most:��the cavity above ceilings, the space on the roof, or mechanical rooms on a floor plan that no one will ever go into or see. These are the areas that house our��ductwork and��air��handlers,��chillers,��exhaust��fans��and many more pieces of mechanical equipment that are crucial to our design. Often, I hear how surprised they are about how many mechanical rooms we need on a floor plan or how much space we need outside for our chillers. This makes it crucial for us to be involved in early talks with the owner and architect when designing the footprint of a new building.��

SCN:��In what��other��ways do you collaborate with architects and planners to��optimize��student comfort?��

Maness:��I collaborate very closely with architects and planners to be sure the overarching designs maximize student comfort. While the architects design the layout of a school in respect to hallways, classrooms, gymnasiums, and more,��it’s��my job to ensure that our mechanical design��maintains��the various spaces and makes them��comfortable��—��no matter what the students are doing. The same type of mechanical system that serves a classroom��wouldn’t��be useful in a gymnasium or a cafeteria. Ensuring that these different areas of a school have the��appropriate mechanical��design is our most important job. Working closely with architects and planners is critical, and we communicate extensively about the spaces we need for all these different areas to ensure we can fit our equipment and have enough space above the ceiling for our larger ductwork.��

SCN: What project taught you the most about energy-smart system design?��

Maness:��Whether��it’s��elementary,��middle��or high school, the first question is always about costs. Since most schools are��supported by taxpayer dollars, cost savings and energy savings are always the first topics with owners.��In my experience, high-school projects present the most opportunity to��utilize��high-energy saving designs because they are larger and have more diverse student programming; kitchens, culinary labs, chemistry labs, auditoriums, and gymnasiums are all high-energy use spaces. These unique spaces create opportunities such as Bi-Polar��Ionization or��Demand Control Ventilation, which are energy-saving designs that help to reduce energy and life cycle costs over time.��

Get more weekly reports and��timely��updates by subscribing for free at��schoolconstructionnews.com/subscribe.��

The post Meet the Editorial Advisory Board: Dorian Maness, GGP appeared first on ���سԹ�.

The post Meet the Editorial Advisory Board: Dorian Maness, GGP appeared first on ���سԹ�.

By Lindsey Coulter

With more than 20 years of architectural experience,��Aaron Jobson, AIA, ALEP, CEO and President��at��Quattrocchi Kwok Architects��(QKA), has worked��with��numerous school facilities across all grade levels and school types. From facilities��master��planning and new campus development to building transformations and critical modernizations, Jobson brings a wealth of experience and insight to the ���سԹ� Editorial Advisory Board.

A founding member of the School Energy Coalition (SEC),��Jobson is also a legislative advocate for energy efficiency measures affecting schools and a leading voice on sustainability. He has written��about Building Information Modeling, sustainable design, community engagement, designing for wellness, and in 2015��was certified as an Accredited Learning Environments Planner (ALEP) by the Association for Learning Environments (A4LE).��

When asked what excites him about the future of K-12 and higher education design, Jobson shared a broad vision of progress. “Teaching is continuing to evolve, and I am excited to see how we can evolve the design of learning environments alongside it,” he said. “At the same time, we are learning more about how the physical environment affects the brain, which will continue to influence design.

Jobson spoke with ���سԹ� about finding new design strategies to connect classrooms to nature, to support teachers and students’ well-being and mental health, and why he’s expanded his view of design to include advocacy and policy.

SCN: With more than 20 years in practice, what experiences most shaped your path into school design and firm leadership?�� ��

Jobson: My architectural journey has been deeply influenced by engaging with, learning from, and understanding the perspectives of educators, including my wife and many members of my family. Understanding their experiences has shaped how I think to design spaces. Over two decades of collaborating with educators on various projects has provided me with a broad understanding of how learning and facilities interact. Together, these have informed a deep level of empathy, appreciation, and respect for the work these professionals do, which informs how I approach the design of school facilities. Our goal with every project is to help educators better serve their students and communities. Some of my most impactful and rewarding experiences are when we get the opportunity to hear from students and teachers who are using the facilities we designed and how our work has��impacted��their educational experience.������

SCN: How has working across all grade levels—from��Pre-K��to higher education— influenced your design approach?����������

Jobson: Working across many grade levels and schools in different communities has provided me with a deep understanding of the breadth of challenges that educators face and how school facilities can support them. This work has helped me understand that each school environment is unique and that the best projects start with actively listening to and learning from teachers and community members.������

SCN: As a founding member of the School Energy Coalition, what gaps in policy or practice compelled you to get involved?������

Jobson: Schools are a unique set of energy users, differing from residential or commercial users, which have��particular challenges��and opportunities. Energy laws and programs often��failed��to address the specific needs and requirements of schools. In part, we started the School Energy Coalition (SEC) to provide a voice for schools and their needs in the California state government.��������

SCN: How do you see the architect’s role evolving in legislative advocacy for energy efficiency in schools?�� ��

Jobson: Architects offer valuable��real world��examples of energy efficiency policy, including the costs and challenges of implementation. Over the past decade or so, the landscape of sustainable design, energy efficiency and regulation has changed a lot. Many older strategies focused on energy efficiency are being replaced by��newer approaches��focusing on decarbonization and renewable energy generation and storage. Architects can also help��identify��regulatory roadblocks that make it harder to implement energy efficiency changes.��������

SCN: How has your definition of “good school design” evolved over time?������

Jobson: In general, my definition of��good design��has always been spaces that are beautiful and functional. Over time, I have learned more about the technical aspects of how the quality of space impacts learning through factors such as acoustics, air quality, etc. These factors have become an important aspect of how I think about functional design and what makes a well-designed learning environment.������

The post Board Member Spotlight: Aaron Jobson on Energy, Policy and the Evolution of ‘Good School Design’ appeared first on ���سԹ�.

The post Board Member Spotlight: Aaron Jobson on Energy, Policy and the Evolution of ‘Good School Design’ appeared first on ���سԹ�.

By Lindsey Coulter��

���سԹ���(SCN)��was excited to welcome��Tieg Murray��to��the��2026��Editorial Advisory Board.��As��Vice President of Market Strategy and Creative Services for Skanska USA Building,��Murray��leads strategic planning to strengthen market differentiation across core sectors, including education. Over the last 19 years at Skanska, Murray has advanced from Marketing Coordinator to senior leadership roles, driving growth strategies for higher education, K-12,��science��and technology.����

In her time at Skanska,��Murray has seen a lot of evolution across the��education and research world��— and��believes that higher��education��is��in a moment of real transformation.��

“Students’ needs are shifting,��and breakthroughs in science, medicine and technology are happening faster than ever,” Murray said.��“Being part of a team that helps campuses adapt to those changes has made the work deeply meaningful for me.��We’re��not just constructing buildings.��We’re��shaping environments that will support the next generation of students,��researchers��and innovators.”��

SCN spoke with Murry about the evolution of science and research facilities, future��trends��and big projects on the horizon.��

SCN:��What first drew you to the education��sector, and��what’s��kept you��invested��over time?����

Murray:��I’m��drawn to university projects and their ability to shape��the��student��experience and influence the future.��That interest has grown into a real passion for university science facilities��—��their complexity, precision��and the incredible innovation that��happens within those spaces��—��make them my favorite project��type that��Skanska��delivers.��Higher��ed campuses have��a��unique��energy.��They’re��places where ideas take��shape��and communities thrive. Knowing Skanska is trusted to build spaces that will directly support the next generation of researchers, educators and students is what keeps me invested and inspired in the work every day.��

SCN:��Science and research environments have evolved rapidly in recent years.��What’s��been the most significant shift since you began working in this space?����

One of the biggest shifts��is��the evolution of��science and research environments.��Labs were��traditionally built around a single��discipline��with very defined boundaries. Today��… science buildings are intentionally interdisciplinary, more technologically driven and built with flexibility at their core.��They’re��designed to support rapid change, encourage��collaboration��and adapt to research needs we��can’t��even predict.��Watching��this��evolution��makes��the work more exciting��and more challenging.��It’s��reinforced just how critical thoughtful planning and true industry��expertise��have become.��

SCN:��Looking ahead, how do you see education environments��—��particularly science and STEM spaces��—��needing to adapt?����

Over the next five to��10��years, science and STEM environments will need to become even more flexible and��forward-looking. Research is evolving too quickly for buildings to be tied to a single purpose, which makes adaptability essential.��We’re��seeing a strong shift toward spaces that can be reconfigured with ease, support emerging��technologies��and encourage collaboration across disciplines. Open labs, shared��equipment��and��purpose-built��collaboration areas are no longer��“nice to have”��features.��They’re��becoming fundamental to how innovation and learning take place on campuses.��

At the same time, institutions are facing increasing pressure to��operate��more efficiently and more responsibly. Sustainability,��resilience,��and performance are now central considerations in planning and delivering new facilities. Universities are working hard to reduce energy use and manage��long-term��operating costs, all��while supporting��highly complex��research programs.��Skanska is helping campuses meet these demands by delivering high-performing, resilient facilities��that support��cutting-edge��research��while lowering energy consumption and lifecycle��costs.��

SCN:��What projects are you��excited to see come to fruition?����

On the East Coast,��I’m��proud of��what’s��ahead��for��Simmons University with the new Living Learning Center��in Boston��and at the University of Virginia with the Paul and Diane Manning Institute of Biotechnology��in��Charlottesville. These are the kinds of facilities that will open doors for students��and create��richer learning experiences,��while��giving researchers the spaces they need to push discovery forward.����

On the West Coast,��in Seattle,��the University of Washington’s Magnuson Health Sciences T-Wing Renovation is��a great example��of��how��we’re��helping institutions breathe new life into older facilities so they can keep pace with rapidly evolving scientific needs. Seeing an aging building transformed into a place that supports modern research is��exciting and��rewarding.��

In the��K-12 world, projects like the Beaverton High School Modernization��in Oregon, Rye Ranch Elementary��in Florida,��and the new Arlington High School��in��Massachusetts,��remind me why this work matters so much. These schools will shape the daily experience of younger students,��giving them safe, inspiring,��future��ready spaces where they can learn and grow.��

Ultimately, across��all these regions and project types, what excites me most is how each facility will directly support student success, research advancement, and community impact, and how Skanska continues to be a trusted partner in shaping the future of education.����

Watch for more insights from Murray and other Editorial Advisory Board members��throughout the year.��

The post Board Member Spotlight: Tieg Murray Brings National K-12 and Higher Education Expertise to ���سԹ� appeared first on ���سԹ�.

The post Board Member Spotlight: Tieg Murray Brings National K-12 and Higher Education Expertise to ���سԹ� appeared first on ���سԹ�.

Campus safety could not be a timelier topic, from elementary school and high school to college and university campuses. Larger issues like gun control will take time to address as students arrive on college campuses. Underlying and growing in parallel on our campuses is stress among students that have seen the unthinkable happen time and time again, continuing to feel unsafe and needing safety in every way. They crave clarity, predictability and peace. They need well-being.

Last year, I covered ways to improve safety through design strategies like Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). But we can expand this toolkit in other ways, taking a view on campus safety of broader dimensions. Studies dating back to 2001 show well-being design strategies reduced mental fatigue, hostility and outbursts of anger. In one study — titled “Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?” — greener buildings resulted in 52 percent fewer felonies, with 7 to 8 percent linked to increased access to nature, which is also strongly tied to increased calm, ability to focus, reduced absence and greatly improved school retention rates. Stress inhibits situational awareness, the conscious observance of one’s surroundings that alerts to health and safety threats, and we miss leakage, the term for the hints disturbed people leave that forewarn catastrophic behavior.

Environmental Stressors

Environmental stressors affect our bodies without our knowledge or volition, constantly affecting our well-being. New understanding of our physiological and psychological relationship with our environment applied to campus planning, design and architecture can improve daily experience, well-being and support individual resiliency. At our disposal are:

• Experience Design, the process of identifying, designing, delivering and maintaining meaningful experiences over time;

• Biophilic Design, the process of design that stems from understanding the inherent human inclination to affiliate with nature; and

• Multi-Sensory Design, the process of design based on the application of scientific study of sensory perception and its effect on well-being.

These strategies contribute to the Settings Approach to design.

Settings Approach

The term Settings Approach refers to health and well-being stemming from the settings of daily life. As discussed by Dr. Mark Dooris, leader of the United Kingdom’s Healthy Universities Model and Framework Project and a founding contributor to the Okanagan Charter, this holistic model is concerned with making the actual places where people spend their time — the physical reality of our campuses — supportive of well-being.

The Settings Approach is at the core of the Okanagan Charter. It was created in 2015 by more than 380 researchers, practitioners, administrators, students and policy makers from 45 countries, including representatives from the World Health Organization; Pan American Health Organization; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on the territory of the Okanagan Nation in Kelowna, Canada. The charter is being adopted by increasing numbers of institutions nationally, setting a commitment and process for well-being on all campuses.

The charter includes two Calls to Action — embed health into all aspects of campus culture, across administration, operations and academic mandates, and lead health promotion action and collaboration locally and globally. Four sub-goals pertain particularly to physical planning, design and maintenance of campus facilities, landscape and infrastructure.

• Include health, well-being and sustainability in all planning and decision-making of campuses and communities, with practices integrated and coordinated across all campus programs.

• Identify opportunities to study and support health and well-being as well as sustainability and resilience, in built and natural academic and learning environments.

• Proactively and intentionally create empowered, connected and resilient campus communities.

• Use cross-cutting approaches to embed understanding and commitment to health, well-being and sustainability in every aspect of campus life, thereby providing both healthful experience and habits that students will carry into life after graduation.

Two of the charter’s key principles directly address school construction and infrastructure: a focus on settings and whole system approaches and emphasis on comprehensive, campus-wide approaches to development and implementation plans for campus communities.

What More Can We Do?

First and foremost, central to the charter is defying silos and working with campus colleagues who may have only participated peripherally or incidentally in the development of campus facilities and master plans in the past. The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) has been at the forefront of educating student life administrators to the Settings Approach and aspects of campus planning and design that affect well-being. Get to know the student life administrators at your institution. Engage them in the development of new projects beyond the cursory initial focus groups. They want to be your partner and will be there to monitor success through the life of the facility.

Don’t wait for a major project to begin. A great success story from Simon Fraser University (SFU) in Vancouver, an early adopter of the Okanagan Charter, started with a simple renovation of a tired study area completed in-house by Facilities Services. Together, Rosie Dhaliwal, acting associate director of Health Promotion, and Marcos Olindan from Facilities Services began to expand the typical process, engaging students in deeper, more meaningful and continuous ways and focusing on features that improve the social, mental and physical health and well-being of space users.

The renewed area was so successful that the process was repeated many times in other areas throughout SFU’s Academic Quadrangle. Principles for Enhancing Well-Being Through Physical Spaces at SFU, guidelines developed from these projects, are now part of SFU’s Healthy Campus Community initiative, and are used in tandem with existing design procedures and standards such as WELL Building Standard, Whole Building Design Guide, LEED and CPTED.

Students are standing up, demanding greater response to campus safety. We are all on a learning curve, but with a more comprehensive attitude, we have tools and strategies available to meet this challenge.

Celine Larkin, AIA, LEED AP, is an architect, urban designer and campus planner with a passion for improving educational settings, currently focused on research into Gen Z and strategies that increase well-being and learning in all built environments. Formerly head of Urban Design/Master Planning at HGA Architects, Engineers + Planners and Gensler Los Angeles, she now consults internationally, based in Doha, Qatar.

The post Designing for Safety: The Next Step appeared first on ���سԹ�.

The post Designing for Safety: The Next Step appeared first on ���سԹ�.