By Aaron Jobson��

During the post-World War II population��boom,��school construction accelerated across the country��as��school systems swelled with new students. As many of these��1950s- and 60s-era��campuses��are now 60��to75 years��old,��they present school��districts��with��several��challenges.����

Many��aging��school��facilities��are in need of��repair,��failing to��meet current building code and safety��standards,��and��requiring��significant investment.��Coinciding with this need,��the modern��approach to educational and community programs,��and��the��understanding of the impact of learning environment quality on educational outcomes��has changed��dramatically.��Older buildings may not provide the flexibility needed for next-generation learning,��or the daylight, ventilation,��and other features that support learning and��wellbeing.��This leaves many��districts��with��the complicated challenge of��deciding whether to modernize or replace existing campus buildings,��all while continuing to��operate��an active school.����

For each school��facing these��challenges,��it is best to��start with a master-planning level analysis of modernization and replacement options. For each��option��it is important to consider a variety of parameters,��including:��

• Existing building conditions,��including needs for��code and��structural upgrades��
• Construction��budget��
• Schedule��and��phasing��
• Campus��operations��and��safety��during construction��
• Learning��environment��quality����
• Community impact��

Taking this holistic view ensures that the available funding is used to provide maximum benefit to education.������

Looking at the��Long Term:��Los Altos High School��

In some cases, the best course of action is a combination of modernization and building replacement projects phased over��several��years. At Los Altos High School��in��California’s��Silicon Valley,��a carefully planned sequence of projects over a��10-year��period��reimagined a legacy mid-century campus into a flexible, student-centered learning environment that supports academic innovation, student wellness, career technical education��(CTE),��athletics��and community engagement.����

Guided by a comprehensive campus-planning strategy with multi-layered community engagement,��the��master plan strengthened the relationships between academic buildings, student-centered outdoor��spaces��and shared community resources.��Several��existing buildings that could continue to support the��school’s academic��programs��were renovated to update worn-out finishes and systems��—��and some��more extensively��to address code compliance��issues��and reconfigure learning environments to provide more flexible and modern spaces.��New facilities include a classroom building, CTE building, student services��center��and auxiliary gym.��Prioritizing flexibility and connections to the outdoors, these spaces expand��opportunities��for learning and support student health and wellness.��

The project was designed to achieve��a high level��of sustainability with major projects achieving LEED certification.��All-electric HVAC systems and an extensive solar array combine��to significantly lower the environmental footprint of the campus.��Careful project planning was��required��to��allow construction to continue in phases��while continuing operations of the school��with as little disruption as possible.��Together, these projects have��significantly transformed the campus into a high-performing, future-ready learning environment that directly supports student achievement,��wellness��and long-term��educational��goals.��

A Fresh Start:��Lake Elementary School��

There are also many��cases��where��it makes��the��most sense��to��completely��start��over. At��Lake Elementary School in San Pablo,��Ca.,��the buildings��were old and undersized and no longer supported the school’s educational programs or the needs of the surrounding community.��These challenges,��and the��cost of upgrading the existing��facilities,��resulted in��a plan for a two-phase replacement of the existing campus on the same site.������

The new elementary school��now��serves��470 students in��grades��transitional kindergarten (TK) through��grade six. A welcoming front entrance provides administrative services and library space that can also accommodate community events after school hours.��New��classrooms for��the first through third��grades��are housed within a��learning��suite; a concept��in which��each classroom opens to a large, shared��flexible space��to support a variety of teaching and learning approaches. A separate, similar��learning��suite��supports��students in grades��four through six.��Further, a��distinct��early-childhood education cluster provides dedicated learning environments��and outdoor gathering and play areas��for the��campus’��youngest students.��The multi-purpose building,��located��in the heart of the campus, provides food service, indoor��and��outdoor dining, and performance and gathering space.����

Lake��Elementary School’s��new campus was designed with significant input from the staff and community and features bright colors and��a strong sense��of identity to engage with the��community and foster pride.����

Constructing the new campus while continuing to welcome students every day��required��careful planning and collaboration. The first phase of construction built the new administration,��library��and classrooms on the existing��fields,��leaving most of the existing buildings operational.��Following this completion,��the��project��team removed the remaining original buildings and constructed the new multi-purpose��room, early childhood classrooms,��playgrounds��and��athletic��fields in their place.��The end result��is a completely new campus that will serve the community many years into the future.������

Read more in the Design & Construction Issue of �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l, available now.

Aaron Jobson is president and CEO of Quattrocchi Kwok Architects in Santa Rosa and Oakland, Ca., and Castle Rock,��Colo.��He��is a member of the �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l Editorial Advisory Board��and��can be reached at��aaronj@qka.com.��

The post Phased Strategies to Achieve Modern Campus Transformations appeared first on �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l.

The post Phased Strategies to Achieve Modern Campus Transformations appeared first on �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l.

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 �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l 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 �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l 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 �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l.

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

By Aaron Jobson��

In the realm of educational facilities, the design-build project delivery method has gained significant traction due to its efficiency, cost-effectiveness and collaborative nature. This approach, which integrates design and construction services under a single contract, offers a streamlined process with two primary approaches: traditional design-build and progressive design-build. This article will explore the use of design-build project delivery in education projects, comparing the two approaches and looking at successful project examples.��

Understanding Design-Build����

Design-build is a project delivery method where a single entity, known as the design-build entity (DBE), is responsible for both the design and construction of a project under a single contract. This method contrasts with the traditional design-bid-build approach, where the design and construction phases are separate, and the owner must manage two contracts. The design-build method can offer several advantages, including faster project delivery, reduced costs and improved communication and collaboration among project stakeholders. However, there are important considerations for any school project pursuing this delivery method to ensure it is set up for success.����

The Role of Design-Build in Education Projects��

Educational institutions are increasingly adopting the design-build method for their construction projects. The reasons for this shift are manifold:��

• Efficiency and Speed: The design-build method allows for overlapping design and construction phases, which can significantly reduce the overall project timeline. This is particularly important for educational institutions that often face tight schedules and need to minimize disruptions to the academic calendar.��
• Cost Savings and Certainty: By integrating design and construction services, the design-build method can reduce costs associated with project management and coordination. Additionally, the DBE can provide a guaranteed maximum price early in the process, offering greater cost certainty.��
• Collaboration and Innovation: The design-build method fosters a collaborative environment where the design and construction teams work together from the project’s inception. This collaboration can lead to innovative solutions that enhance the functionality and sustainability of educational facilities.��

Traditional Design-Build Approach��

The traditional design-build approach involves selecting a DBE based on a competitive bidding process. The DBE is responsible for both the design and construction phases, and the project is typically delivered under a lump sum or guaranteed maximum price contract. Key features of the traditional design-build approach include:��

• Single Point of Responsibility: The owner works with one contract, simplifying communication and accountability.��
• Faster Project Delivery: With design and construction phases overlapping, projects often progress more quickly.��
• Cost Certainty: The DBE provides a lump sum or guaranteed maximum price early in the process.��
• Bridging Documents and RFQ/P: The district or school must engage a separate architecture or program management firm to work with stakeholders to create a preliminary design for the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Proposals (P) process, often called bridging documents. This is essential to make sure the DBE scope is clear, and the district receives competitive proposals.��

This approach is well-suited for projects with defined scopes, minimal expected changes and a short timeframe for completion.�� Some of the challenges can be the time required to create bridging documents and conduct the RFQ/P process, as well as potential changes in design and approach from the bridging documents to the DBE team. It should also be noted that the district gives up a certain amount of control over the details of the final design to the DBE to stay within the contracted guaranteed maximum price.������

Progressive Design-Build Approach��

The progressive design-build approach builds on the principles of traditional design-build but offers greater flexibility during the early stages of a project. In progressive design-build, the owner selects a DBE based on qualifications rather than cost and collaborates closely during the design phase before finalizing the price and construction details. Key features of the progressive design-build approach include:��

• Two-Phase Process: The project is developed in two stages: pre-construction (collaborative planning and design) and construction.��
• Owner Involvement: Owners actively participate in design decisions, ensuring alignment with project goals.��
• Flexibility: This approach allows adjustments to scope, budget and schedule as the design progresses and includes significant community engagement during the process.����
• Streamlined Selection Process: Because the DBE does not provide a guaranteed maximum price at selection, a combined RFQ/P process can be used, and separate bridging documents are not required.������

The progressive design-build approach is ideal for complex projects with evolving or uncertain budget, scope and design requirements. It is particularly beneficial for educational institutions that need to accommodate changing needs and priorities and would like to include significant community engagement throughout the project lifecycle.��

To read the full article, including a case study on Gavilan College, check out��the of �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l.��

Aaron Jobson is president and CEO of Quattrocchi Kwok Architects in Santa Rosa and Oakland, Calif., and is a member of the �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l Editorial Advisory Board. He can be reached at aaronj@qka.com.

The post Design-Build for Education Projects: Progressive and Traditional Approaches appeared first on �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l.

The post Design-Build for Education Projects: Progressive and Traditional Approaches appeared first on �Ӱ�ԭ��ҕ�l.