A Comprehensive Analysis of Historic Building Management on College and University Campuses
Preserving Legacy, Enabling Progress
By Robert Kroon
Preface: Powering the Future of Historic Buildings with August Berres
The backlog for campus historical building retrofits currently exceeds $112 billion.
At August Berres, we believe that the enduring legacy of a historic building and the promise of a modernized, innovative future are not mutually exclusive. They are two sides of the same coin. This report delves into the intricate challenges and strategic opportunities involved in retrofitting historic buildings on college and university campuses—projects that are essential for preserving heritage while creating spaces equipped for 21st-century learning and work.
The imperative to modernize these structures for today's students, faculty, and administrators often clashes with the limitations of aging electrical systems. This is where modern solutions become critical. Our family of products, including Respond!, Juce, and Campfire, are specifically engineered to address this exact challenge. By leveraging innovative fault-managed power (FMP) technology, we enable the safe and simple deployment of modern electrical infrastructure, supporting the dynamic, flexible environments required for today’s Agile Workplaces. This approach allows facility managers and designers to achieve a technical capability that is "equal or better than new," without compromising the historical integrity of the building.
This report serves as a comprehensive guide for commercial real estate owners, architects, facility managers, and electrical design firms. It provides a deep analysis of the financial, operational, and philanthropic dynamics of these complex projects, showcasing how strategic planning and the right technology can turn daunting retrofits into powerful investments in a university's future.
1. Introduction: The Enduring Value and Challenges of Historic Campus Buildings
College and university campuses across the United States are often defined by their historic architecture, which serves as a tangible link to their past and a powerful symbol of their enduring legacy. These structures are more than just old buildings; they are critical components of an institution's identity and a dynamic part of its future.
Defining "Historic" in the University Context
The designation of a "historic property" within a university setting extends beyond mere age, encompassing a district, site, building, structure, or object that holds significance in American history, architecture, engineering, archeology, or culture at a national, state, or local level.1 Such properties are frequently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a formal recognition of their importance.2
The methodology for evaluating historic structures on campuses involves a comprehensive understanding of how a building or landscape contributes to the university's historical development and character. This process includes detailed interior and exterior surveys and a thorough assessment of the property's integrity. Based on this information, buildings are often assigned a preservation priority ranking, categorizing their importance from "Fundamental" to "Not-contributing" to the university's historic character.1
For a property to be eligible for listing on the National Register, it typically must be 50 years of age or older and satisfy at least one of four specific criteria: its association with important historical events or developments; its connection to the lives of significant historical figures; its architectural, landscape, or engineering significance; or its potential to yield important historical information.3 Crucially, the property must also maintain its integrity across seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. While most properties are listed at the local level of significance, the emphasis remains on both significance and integrity.3
This rigorous definition of "historic" extends beyond simply being an old building. It requires a strategic assessment by universities to determine which older structures genuinely meet these stringent criteria for formal designation. This distinction is paramount for strategic resource allocation. Buildings with high historical significance, once formally designated, can unlock specialized preservation funding and grants. Conversely, older buildings lacking such significance might fall under general deferred maintenance budgets. The initial apprehension some universities express regarding potential restrictions imposed by historic status, such as limitations on future upgrades or adaptations 5, must be carefully weighed against the substantial advantages of designation, including enhanced campus identity and access to dedicated funding.5
The Strategic Importance of Preserving Campus Heritage
Historic buildings serve as tangible links to a university's past, embodying its heritage, culture, and identity. They impart character and gravitas to the campus, frequently becoming iconic features that play a significant role in attracting prospective students, faculty, and visitors. These visibly historic structures foster a powerful sense of place, tradition, and permanence.5
The preservation of these assets is not merely an aesthetic choice or a nod to tradition; it functions as a potent recruitment tactic and a core component of the school's brand. The unique campus environment created by historic architecture is often what people associate with prestigious institutions such as Stanford, MIT, or Harvard, and universities actively seek to preserve this distinctive "look and feel".6 This perspective fundamentally reframes the discourse from the "cost of preservation" to an "investment in brand equity and student attraction." Universities should proactively leverage their historic architecture in marketing and admissions efforts, justifying significant retrofit investments as strategic enhancements that enrich the overall student experience and reinforce institutional legacy.
2. The Landscape of Historic Campus Infrastructure
The physical infrastructure of higher education institutions in the United States includes a substantial number of buildings that are considered historic, presenting both opportunities and significant challenges for their management and modernization.
Quantifying Historic Buildings on U.S. College Campuses
A considerable portion of higher education facilities hold formal historic designation. Over 2,500 campus buildings in the United States are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.7 This figure highlights the recognized historical value embedded within university estates.
The officially listed number is likely a conservative estimate of the total number of older buildings with historic qualities or those that could be eligible for designation. For example, data shows that most existing college and university buildings are classified as "historic" simply because they are over 50 years old, even if not all of them formally qualify as historic preservation sites..8
Furthermore, a notable portion of identified historic properties at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), approximately 28.9%, were not yet on the National Register.9
This suggests that the true scale of buildings requiring preservation consideration, even if not formally designated, is considerably larger than the official National Register count. This expanded scope increases the overall challenge of capital renewal, highlighting the necessity for universities to undertake comprehensive, campus-wide inventories of historic assets. These inventories should go beyond formal listings to ensure a thorough understanding of their preservation responsibilities and opportunities.
Assessing the Scale of Retrofit and Modernization Needs
The estimated replacement cost for college campuses across the United States is approximately $2 trillion, with a significant portion representing a substantial backlog of needed capital renewals. This backlog currently exceeds $112 billion.10 The pervasive need for renewal is further underscored by the average age of a campus asset, which stands at 62 years, with roughly 75% of campus facilities being between 30 and 40 years old.11
This backlog is characterized as a "staggering" and "urgent" crisis. The investment gap between the actual need for facility maintenance and the amount being spent has been persistent, never falling below 16% since the Great Recession, and widening to 43% during the COVID-19 pandemic.13
Many historic buildings, while potentially having years of useful life remaining, are often over 50 years old and require substantial updates to meet modern functionality, energy efficiency standards, and accessibility requirements.6
The $112 billion capital renewal backlog is not merely a figure representing delayed maintenance; it is inextricably linked to the imperative to adapt aging infrastructure for "modern research and collaboration," the integration of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), and the evolving needs of a "changing student population".10 This signifies that the challenge extends beyond simple repairs; it demands a strategic transformation of spaces to support 21st-century academic and technological requirements.
The core challenge is thus not simply one of repair but of strategic modernization. Retrofitting historic buildings is a complex undertaking that necessitates balancing preservation mandates with the imperative to create highly functional, technologically advanced, and flexible spaces capable of supporting contemporary pedagogical and research methodologies. A superficial "fix-it" approach is insufficient; a comprehensive, transformative strategy is required for these vital assets.
3. Budgetary Pressures and the Deferred Maintenance Crisis
The management of historic buildings on university campuses is significantly impacted by pervasive budgetary pressures and a substantial backlog of deferred maintenance. These financial challenges necessitate strategic planning and innovative funding approaches.
The Staggering Backlog of Capital Renewals
The estimated capital renewal backlog for U.S. college campuses exceeds $112 billion, representing a significant financial burden.10 This substantial figure constitutes a considerable portion of the estimated $2 trillion replacement cost for all campus infrastructure nationwide.10
To provide context, the National Park Service (NPS), another steward of large, aging public estates, faces a comparable multibillion-dollar deferred maintenance backlog, estimated at over $22 billion for fiscal year 2024.14
While this data is not directly from higher education, it illustrates that the challenges faced by universities in managing their historic building stock are part of a larger national trend of underinvestment in existing assets. This broader context suggests that universities may potentially draw lessons from strategies employed by other large asset holders like the NPS in addressing deferred maintenance, and it also highlights a potential broader need for public policy solutions or increased federal funding for infrastructure, including that of higher education. The problem is not confined to the academic sector.
Key Cost Drivers and Unexpected Expenses in Historic Retrofit Projects
Adaptive reuse projects, which involve repurposing existing buildings, can often be significantly less expensive than new construction, potentially reducing costs by up to 50% for the same amount of space. This cost-effectiveness primarily stems from the building's core infrastructure already being in place.16 However, it is crucial to note that costs can vary widely, and projects involving significant additions to historic structures can even be more expensive than new builds.18
Common cost premiums that frequently drive up expenses in historic retrofits include:
Specialized Labor: Historic projects often require highly skilled artisans and specialized contracting professionals. Labor costs can account for a higher percentage (typically 60%) of the total project cost compared to new builds (55%), a factor exacerbated by challenging working conditions and unforeseen issues within older structures.17
Custom Materials: Preserving the unique architectural character of historic university buildings frequently necessitates custom-made components such as windows, doors, or decorative elements. This can limit vendor competition and significantly increase material prices.18
Structural Changes: Adapting historic buildings for modern academic or administrative needs often requires substantial structural work, including selective demolition, new foundations, strengthening, underpinning, and extensive code upgrades for seismic requirements or to accommodate new loads.6
Hazardous Material Abatement (Hazmat): Older university buildings commonly contain hazardous materials like asbestos, lead paint, or mold. The cost of their safe removal can be substantial, ranging from a typical $2.5-$6.5 per square foot, but potentially escalating to $50 per square foot for severe contamination, as seen in a former university lab example.16
Basement and Foundation Waterproofing: To protect the structural integrity and interior spaces of historic university buildings, extensive waterproofing below grade is often necessary, which can be a costly endeavor.18
Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) Systems: Original MEP systems in historic buildings are almost certainly outdated and require complete replacement or significant upgrades. Challenges arise in routing new, larger ductwork and piping through thick historic walls or structural floor slabs, often requiring costly reinforcements.18
Acoustics: Depending on the building's new function (e.g., a lecture hall or performance space), achieving modern acoustic standards can become a significant cost driver if the existing structure lacks adequate sound insulation.18
Historic renovation projects are inherently prone to unexpected issues, leading to a higher rate of construction change orders, averaging 10-15% of construction cost, compared to 5-8% for new builds. Consequently, a higher contingency budget of 7-10% is considered prudent for historic projects, compared to 3-6% for new builds. These surprises often stem from incomplete historical records or hidden elements discovered during demolition.6
While adaptive reuse is frequently promoted as a more "cost-effective" alternative to new construction 16, a detailed examination of the specific cost premiums and the significantly higher rates for change orders and contingencies reveals a critical financial paradox. The initial base cost might indeed be lower, but the inherent unpredictability and the necessity for specialized requirements introduce substantial financial risk and complexity throughout the project lifecycle.
Universities must therefore approach historic retrofit projects with an exceptionally robust due diligence process. This includes commissioning detailed Historic Structure Reports (HSRs) early in the planning phase 19 and allocating substantially higher contingency budgets than for new construction. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the inherent financial uncertainties and ensure project feasibility.
Navigating Regulatory Hurdles and Compliance Costs
A common concern among universities is that historic landmark designation might impose restrictions on future upgrades or adaptations, leading some institutions to hesitate in pursuing such designations.5 However, this perception is incomplete.
All renovation projects, particularly those involving older buildings, must strictly comply with current building codes, accessibility standards (such as the Americans with Disabilities Act), and modern safety requirements. This often necessitates extensive internal gutting and comprehensive overhauls of existing systems.6 Collaboration with local or state preservation agencies is a mandatory aspect of landmark designation. While this oversight might initially appear restrictive, these relationships can also provide invaluable technical support, expert guidance, and access to specialized funding opportunities.5
The perception of historic designation as solely restrictive 5 is thus not fully accurate, as the same sources explicitly highlight that designation concurrently opens doors to specialized funding and expert technical support. This indicates a fundamental tension between the regulatory burden and the strategic advantages conferred by such status. Universities need to cultivate strong, collaborative relationships with preservation authorities and experts from the earliest stages of project planning. A flexible and communicative approach is crucial to effectively balance the imperative of preserving historic character with the critical need for modern functionality and strict code compliance. This proactive engagement can transform perceived hurdles into valuable opportunities for both technical assistance and financial leverage.
Funding Mechanisms and Opportunities for Historic Preservation
Historic designation significantly expands opportunities for universities to access grants and financial incentives specifically designed for preservation projects.5 Key funding sources available for historic campus building renovation and preservation include:
Federal Grants & Tax Incentives: These include the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), managed by the National Park Service (NPS), which provides matching grants for restoration and planning. The Federal Historic Tax Credit (HTC) offers a 20% tax credit on qualified rehabilitation expenses for income-generating historic buildings, making it a powerful incentive for private investment in historic properties.5
State & Regional Grants: Numerous state and municipal agencies offer a variety of grants, tax incentives, and low-interest loans tailored for historic preservation, facade restoration, and cultural heritage projects.21
National Nonprofit Preservation Grants: Organizations such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), and the Getty Foundation (through initiatives like the Campus Heritage Initiative) provide financial support for planning, advocacy, and direct preservation projects.5
Private Gifts/Philanthropy: Philanthropic contributions play a critical role, as demonstrated by projects like Marston Hall at Iowa State, where private gifts accounted for one-third of the funding.23
Crucially, a well-prepared Historic Structure Report (HSR) can significantly strengthen funding applications by providing a comprehensive understanding of the building's history, current condition, and precise restoration needs, signaling project readiness to potential funders.19
The detailed information available points to a diverse and extensive array of funding sources (federal, state, non-profit, private) specifically earmarked for historic preservation.5 This suggests that universities might not be fully leveraging this complex and specialized funding ecosystem, possibly due to a lack of awareness, perceived bureaucratic hurdles associated with historic designation, or insufficient internal expertise in navigating these specific funding avenues. Universities should proactively invest in identifying and pursuing these specialized funding streams. This requires developing dedicated expertise in grant writing, navigating the intricacies of historic tax credit applications, and cultivating strategic relationships with preservation-focused philanthropic organizations. Successfully tapping into these resources can significantly offset the often higher, specialized costs associated with historic retrofits, making otherwise daunting projects financially feasible.
The following table summarizes common cost premiums and recommended contingency allocations for historic adaptive reuse projects compared to new construction:
Table 1: Common Cost Premiums and Contingencies in Historic Adaptive Reuse Projects
4. Goals for Historic Building Retrofits and the Role of Modern Technology
Retrofitting historic buildings on university campuses is a multifaceted endeavor driven by a range of strategic goals that extend beyond mere preservation. The aim is to transform these structures to meet contemporary demands, often achieving technical capabilities "equal or better than new" through the integration of advanced technologies.
Defining Retrofit Goals
The primary goals for historic building retrofits include:
Modernization and Functionality: Updating facilities to meet modern functional, safety, and accessibility standards, while preserving their historic character.5 This often involves significant internal reconfiguration to create larger, brighter, and more open spaces, media rooms, and collaborative areas.6
Enhanced Student Experience: Improving the overall campus experience to serve as a recruitment and retention tool for students.13 This includes creating updated classrooms, collaborative learning spaces, and integrating cutting-edge technology to support 21st-century academic and research needs.6
Energy Efficiency and Sustainability: Reducing carbon emissions and enhancing energy performance to align with modern environmental goals.5 This can involve implementing better insulation, changing windows, enhancing HVAC systems, and utilizing renewable energy sources.38 Retrofitting existing structures minimizes resource consumption and reduces waste, embodying the philosophy that "the greenest building is the one already built".5
Operational Effectiveness and Compliance: Improving overall operational effectiveness, ensuring compliance with current building codes, and enhancing safety.40 This includes addressing outdated systems and hazardous materials.18
Brand Preservation and Identity: Maintaining the distinctive "look and feel" of historic campuses, which is a powerful recruitment tactic and contributes significantly to a university's brand and competitive advantage.6
The Importance of Modern Electrical Upgrades and Infrastructure
Modern electrical upgrades are crucial for historic building retrofits to achieve "equal or better than new" technical capabilities. Older electrical systems are often outdated, inefficient, and pose safety risks.42 Key aspects of modern electrical infrastructure include:
Enhanced Energy Efficiency: Upgrades such as LED lighting, energy-efficient appliances, and smart meters significantly reduce energy consumption and lower utility costs.42 Energy management systems can optimize usage, and advanced HVAC systems can yield substantial energy savings.40
Improved Safety and Compliance: Modern systems replace deteriorated wiring, undersized circuits, and outdated panels, reducing risks of electrical fires and shocks.43 They ensure compliance with continuously updated building codes and safety standards.42
Increased Functionality and Smart Integration: Retrofitting allows for the integration of smart technology and automation, such as smart lighting, climate control, and security systems, enhancing convenience and efficiency.42 These systems enable remote monitoring and control.42
Addressing Structural Challenges: Routing new, larger mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems through thick historic walls is a common challenge.18 Innovative solutions like wireless technology can minimize the need for physical wiring, reducing damage to the historic fabric.44 Low-voltage systems, such as "Uni-strut" lighting solutions, can hide sensors and wires for aesthetic purposes while providing flexibility.44
Power over Ethernet (PoE): PoE is a revolutionary green building solution that consolidates power and data into a single Ethernet cable, reducing energy consumption and material waste.46 It simplifies installation and is ideal for older or historic buildings as it minimizes structural changes and eliminates cord clutter, supporting flexible office layouts.47
Leveraging Facility Management Platforms (FMP) and Smart Building Technology
Facility Management Platforms (FMP), often integrated with Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Facility Management (FM), are essential for optimizing historic building retrofits:
Digital Twin Creation: BIM for FM creates a "digital twin" – a comprehensive digital representation of a building – serving as a centralized repository for detailed insights into systems, assets, and equipment.41
Data-Driven Decision Making: FMPs enable facility managers to monitor asset performance, track maintenance schedules, and identify trends, leading to better decision-making for retrofit planning and execution.41
Operational Optimization: Smart building technology, powered by IoT devices, AI, and digital sensors, monitors building performance metrics like comfort, efficiency, and productivity.49 This allows for predictive maintenance, energy optimization, and improved space utilization.50
Building Automation Systems (BAS/BMS): These systems integrate HVAC, lighting, security, and energy management into a single platform, providing real-time monitoring and control.52 Wireless control technologies facilitate upgrades without extensive rewiring, which is particularly beneficial for historic structures where invasive installations could cause damage.53
Achieving High Performance: Successful retrofits, like that of the Empire State Building, have demonstrated significant energy consumption reductions (e.g., 38%) through the introduction of building management systems and smart sensors.41 This proves that historic structures can be transformed into highly efficient, modern facilities.49
Implementing Agile Workplace Strategies
Agile workplace strategies, while originating in project management, are increasingly applied to physical spaces, especially in historic building renovations, to create flexible and responsive environments:
Adaptability and Flexibility: Agile office design prioritizes adaptable, worker-driven layouts that improve productivity, collaboration, and spatial efficiency.54 This involves creating open, multipurpose areas, project rooms, huddle spaces, and informal seating, balanced with quiet and private work zones.54
Iterative Progress: Applying "sprints" to renovation projects allows for manageable increments of work, helping to control expenses, reduce overwhelm, and keep the scope realistic.55 This iterative approach ensures steady and tangible progress, adapting to unforeseen conditions common in historic buildings.56
Technology Integration for Agility: Agile workplaces require technology that facilitates connectivity and mobility, such as smart meeting rooms, cloud-based collaboration tools, and wireless conferencing.54 Modern electrical infrastructure, including DC-powered buildings and cordless power solutions, is ideal for supporting agile workplaces in older buildings by enabling easier reconfiguration and eliminating cord clutter.48
User-Centric Design: Agile design focuses on understanding employee needs and creating spaces that cater to various working styles, balancing open collaboration zones with enclosed meeting rooms and private focus areas.54
By combining meticulous preservation with strategic modern electrical upgrades, advanced FMPs, and agile workplace design principles, universities can ensure their historic buildings not only retain their invaluable heritage but also provide cutting-edge, highly functional, and sustainable environments that are "equal or better than new" for future generations.
5. Case Studies: Illustrative Retrofit Projects and Their Costs
Examining specific historic building retrofit projects on university campuses provides concrete examples of the scope, cost, and strategic considerations involved in these complex undertakings.
Marston Hall, Iowa State University: A Century of Engineering Innovation
Marston Hall, Iowa State University
Marston Hall, completed in 1903 as Engineering Hall, was renamed in 1947 to honor Anson Marston, the first dean of the College of Engineering. For over a century, this building has served as the iconic home of Iowa State's world-class College of Engineering, symbolizing its distinguished reputation and serving as the crucial first impression for prospective students and their families.24
The project involved a comprehensive two-year renovation, completed in July 2016, that entailed a "complete reconfiguration" of the 60,000-square-foot building. The scope included updating the building's infrastructure and physical components, modernizing technology throughout, increasing and upgrading classroom and meeting spaces (including several 80-seat classrooms), and reconfiguring offices for improved flow. Student services and administrative units were strategically relocated. The renovation aimed to honor the building's historical significance while equipping it for future generations of engineers, with LEED Gold certification anticipated.23
The total renovation cost was $27.1 million, an increase from an earlier estimate of $20 million. Notably, 30% of the final price tag was specifically allocated to abatement and demolition contracts, highlighting the significant initial work required for such a historic structure. Funding for the project was a collaborative effort, with approximately two-thirds coming from university and college funds and the remaining one-third secured through private gifts, underscoring the critical role of philanthropy.23
The description of Marston Hall's renovation as a "complete reconfiguration" 24 and the allocation of a significant 30% of the budget to "abatement and demolition" 23 align strongly with the concept of "surgical-like improvements" necessary for historic buildings.6 This demonstrates that modernizing these structures often requires a deep, invasive intervention to "gut a building while preserving its historical style" 6, rather than just superficial upgrades. This case study vividly illustrates the inherent complexity and depth of intervention required for historic buildings to meet contemporary functional, technological, and safety standards while meticulously preserving their architectural character. It emphasizes that these are not minor updates but rather significant, multi-faceted transformations, which inherently justify the higher cost premiums and extended timelines typically associated with such projects.
Alderman Library (Edgar Shannon Library), University of Virginia: Modernizing a Historic Academic Hub
Edgar Shannon Library, University of Virginia
Originally constructed in 1938, the Alderman Library, now known as the Edgar Shannon Library, is a foundational and iconic academic hub at the University of Virginia, deeply embedded in the campus's historic fabric.27
This was a substantial four-year, multi-component revitalization project completed in April 2024. The core of the project involved a $124 million investment to modernize the original 1938 structure, bringing it up to contemporary standards of safety, accessibility, and service. Beyond this, the project strategically included the demolition of a 107,000-square-foot infill building from the late 1960s and the construction of a new, five-story, 130,000-square-foot cast-in-place addition. This comprehensive approach aimed to create a modern, efficient academic space while honoring the original building's legacy.27
The total project cost was $124 million, although earlier plans had estimated it at $160 million. While specific funding sources are not detailed in the provided information, the scale and scope of the project, combined with UVA's institutional profile, suggest a significant reliance on a combination of institutional funds and major philanthropic contributions.27
The UVA Alderman Library project is not a singular retrofit; it represents a sophisticated hybrid approach. It involved the demolition of a later, non-historic addition and substantial new construction alongside the comprehensive modernization of the original, historically significant structure.27 This indicates a deliberate strategy to achieve modern functionality and capacity while respecting the core historic asset. This case study demonstrates that for very large, complex historic assets, the optimal solution may extend beyond a pure renovation. It can involve a strategic blend of meticulous preservation, selective demolition of less significant or functionally obstructive additions, and targeted new construction. This approach challenges the simplistic "new vs. retrofit" dichotomy, advocating for a more nuanced "integrated campus development" strategy that prioritizes overall campus needs and long-term sustainability.
Lawyers Club, University of Michigan Law School: Preserving Collegiate Gothic Grandeur
Lawyers Club, University of Michigan
Originally constructed in 1924 for $2 million, the Lawyers Club is renowned for its Collegiate Gothic exterior, which contributes significantly to the University of Michigan Law Quadrangle's reputation as one of the most beautiful campus areas in the nation. This architectural distinction makes it a highly valuable and recognizable historic asset.29
The $39 million renovation project focused primarily on extensive interior renovations, comprehensive technology upgrades, installation of new roofs, enhancement of fire safety features, and implementation of energy performance measures designed to exceed national energy efficiency standards by over 30%. A key objective was to transform student rooms and living areas while meticulously preserving the iconic historic Collegiate Gothic exteriors. This project was part of a larger, multi-phase $102 million capital improvement initiative for the law school, which also included a new academic building and a student commons.29
The total renovation cost was $39 million. A substantial portion of the funding, $20 million, was provided by a single major gift from Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charles T. Munger. The remaining $19 million came from central university investment proceeds and the Lawyers Club's self-sustaining non-profit organization. This significant philanthropic contribution "jumpstarted" the project.29
The Lawyers Club renovation was significantly enabled by a single, large $20 million gift 30, covering over half of the project's cost. When considered alongside Harvard's success in raising $237 million for the Fogg Museum update 6, this strongly suggests that while donors may sometimes be perceived as preferring new construction, highly visible, iconic historic preservation projects—especially those integral to a university's strong brand and aesthetic appeal (like the U of M Law Quad's renowned beauty29)—can attract substantial philanthropic support.
Universities seeking major philanthropic gifts for historic preservation should strategically emphasize the iconic status, enduring brand value, and tangible positive impact on the student experience that such projects offer. Framing these initiatives as investments in the institution's lasting legacy and competitive advantage, rather than merely as maintenance endeavors, can powerfully resonate with high-net-worth donors who seek to make a significant and visible impact.
The following table summarizes these three illustrative historic campus retrofit projects:
Table 2: Selected Historic Campus Retrofit Projects and Costs
6. Donor Dynamics: New Construction vs. Historic Preservation
The perceived appeal of new construction versus historic preservation projects to philanthropic donors is a critical factor in university capital planning. While new buildings often capture headlines, the strategic value of historic assets is increasingly recognized.
Understanding Perceived Donor Preferences
It is often perceived that new construction projects "might grab headlines and win donations," suggesting a traditional donor preference for highly visible, tangible new builds that offer a clear "new" impact.13 This perception is rooted in the immediate and often dramatic transformation that new construction represents, offering a clear narrative of growth and modernity.
However, there is a growing trend among colleges to update historic buildings to meet the needs of modern students, preserve their distinctive brand, address limitations in landlocked areas, and leverage the cost-efficiency of renovation over new construction.6 The substantial investment in historic renovations, such as Skanska's involvement in $10 billion worth of historic education projects out of $14 billion in higher education projects 6, and the successful fundraising for projects like Marston Hall 23, the Lawyers Club 30, and Harvard's Fogg Museum ($237 million) 6 indicate that the "new vs. old" donor preference is not an absolute, immutable rule.
Instead, it suggests that donor preferences are evolving, with increasing responsiveness to projects that offer significant modernization and functional improvements within a historic context. Universities should actively challenge the outdated assumption that donors are exclusively interested in funding new buildings. By effectively articulating the strategic value, the benefits of modernization, and the enhancement of the institutional brand inherent in historic preservation projects, institutions can successfully cultivate significant philanthropic support for these crucial retrofits.
Strategies for Cultivating Philanthropic Support for Historic Building Retrofits
To successfully attract philanthropic support for historic building retrofits, universities should employ targeted strategies that emphasize the multifaceted value of these projects:
Emphasize Brand and Identity: Clearly articulate how historic buildings are central to the university's identity and brand appeal, which strongly resonates with both current students and alumni. Highlighting how renovations allow alumni to recognize familiar elements while new students experience modern, functional spaces can bridge generational appeal.5
Highlight Sustainability and Environmental Stewardship: Position historic building rehabilitation as a key component of the university's commitment to environmental responsibility. Emphasize that repurposing existing structures aligns with modern environmental goals by minimizing resource consumption, reducing waste, and conserving embodied energy, echoing the philosophy that "the greenest building is the one already built".5 This appeals to environmentally conscious donors and broader societal values.
Showcase Modern Functionality and Enhanced Student Experience: Demonstrate how renovations are specifically geared towards improving the student experience, such as creating updated classrooms, collaborative learning spaces, and integrating cutting-edge technology. Projects involving libraries and STEM facilities are particularly attractive targets for renovation due to the rapid evolution of academic needs in these areas.6
Leverage Historic Designation: Explain how historic designation opens doors to specialized grants and tax incentives. Presenting these as strategic financial advantages can make a project more appealing to donors by demonstrating a diversified funding approach and a commitment to leveraging all available resources.5
Develop Comprehensive Preservation Plans: Presenting a well-thought-out, long-term preservation plan that outlines how the historic building will evolve while honoring its original design can build significant donor confidence. Involving preservation experts early in the planning process further demonstrates a professional and strategic approach.5
Donors are fundamentally motivated by the impact and legacy of their contributions. For historic buildings, the "impact" transcends merely providing a new facility; it encompasses the preservation of institutional identity and the modernization of tradition. The ability to articulate how a project will "recapture and preserve the past – while equipping students to tackle future engineering challenges" (Marston Hall) 24 or "enhance significantly the student experience" while preserving "historic Collegiate Gothic exteriors" (Lawyers Club) 30 offers a unique and compelling philanthropic proposition.
Fundraising strategies for historic buildings should pivot towards emphasizing this "return on identity." This means showcasing how the project strengthens the university's unique character, reinforces its historical narrative, and enhances its competitive edge in the educational landscape. This narrative can powerfully appeal to alumni's sense of nostalgia and loyalty, as well as to new donors seeking sustainable, culturally significant, and impactful investments.
The Brand Value of Preserved Heritage
The distinctive "look and feel" of historic campuses, exemplified by institutions like Stanford, MIT, or Harvard, is a powerful and recognized recruitment tactic. This unique aesthetic contributes significantly to a university's competitive advantage.6 Preserving historic resources creates a visible and tangible connection with the community's history and culture, offering invaluable educational opportunities that extend beyond traditional classroom-based learning.31
In the increasingly competitive and often commoditized landscape of higher education, where many institutions invest in similar new facilities, a well-preserved and thoughtfully modernized historic campus offers a unique and compelling differentiator. It communicates a commitment to tradition, stability, and enduring values, which can be highly attractive to specific student demographics, faculty, and even research partners. Universities should proactively integrate their historic assets as a core component of their overall value proposition and marketing strategy, rather than treating them merely as historical footnotes. This involves weaving preservation narratives into recruitment materials, campus tours, and strategic communications, thereby showcasing how heritage actively enhances and enriches the modern learning and living environment.
7. The Impact of Declining Enrollment on Campus Facilities and Funding
Declining student enrollment presents a significant and compounding challenge to the financial health and facility management strategies of universities, particularly impacting the maintenance and preservation of historic buildings.
Exacerbating Deferred Maintenance Challenges
Declining student enrollment directly translates into increased financial pressure on universities, as tuition revenue is a primary source of funding.32 This financial strain often leads to budget cuts, with areas like marketing and, critically, facility maintenance, frequently being the first in line for reductions.34 The "arms race" in new construction that many institutions engaged in following the Great Recession, driven by a desire to attract students, has paradoxically left many colleges with "swollen campus footprints and declining tuition revenues," thereby exacerbating existing maintenance backlogs.35
The pre-existing investment gap in facilities, which was already substantial (never falling below 16% since the Great Recession), widens dramatically during periods of financial stress, reaching 43% during the pandemic.13 Declining enrollment directly reduces tuition revenue, a critical financial input for universities. This revenue shortfall then necessitates budget cuts, with facilities maintenance often being an early casualty.34 This underinvestment leads to "meaningful degradation" of campus facilities.13 In turn, neglected, vacant, or unused spaces become deterrents for prospective students and donors 13, further accelerating enrollment decline.
This creates a detrimental feedback loop where financial challenges lead to physical decay, which then exacerbates the financial problems. Universities grappling with enrollment challenges must strategically intervene to break this vicious cycle. This requires a commitment to targeted, critical facility maintenance and thoughtful retrofits, even amidst budget constraints. Neglecting the physical campus can actively undermine recruitment and retention efforts, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy of institutional decline.
Strategic Implications for Campus Footprint and Investment Priorities
A "misalignment between the existing campus footprint and the shrinking need for physical space embodies incredible financial risks" for universities.13 To remain competitive, institutions must make strategic decisions about their physical assets, as vacant or underutilized spaces can actively deter potential students and donors.13 The disproportionate financial contribution of international students means that any decline in their enrollment poses a significant threat to university budgets, impacting overall capital and operating funds.32 Furthermore, external factors such as state funding freezes and delays in bond sales for capital projects can severely complicate facility planning and exacerbate maintenance backlogs.36
Given the dual pressures of declining enrollment and an often "swollen campus footprint" 35 resulting from past expansion, universities can no longer afford to maintain all buildings equally or inefficiently. The "misalignment" between space and need 13 implies a critical need for strategic divestment, repurposing, or consolidation of assets. In this context, adaptive reuse becomes even more crucial, not solely for historic preservation, but as a fundamental strategy for overall campus efficiency and long-term financial health.
Universities must undertake rigorous, comprehensive campus master planning that includes detailed portfolio analysis. This involves identifying underutilized or non-essential buildings for potential mothballing, demolition, or adaptive reuse. The goal is to ensure that every square foot of campus infrastructure contributes strategically to the institutional mission and financial sustainability. Historic buildings, with their inherent value and potential for adaptive reuse, should be prioritized within this optimization framework, offering a sustainable path forward.
Balancing Asset Preservation with Evolving Institutional Needs
Despite the financial pressures, maintaining existing facilities is widely recognized as crucial for enhancing the overall campus experience and serving as an effective tool for student recruitment and retention.13 It is paramount for universities to adapt their infrastructure to meet the evolving needs of changing student populations and the rapid demands of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence.10
The challenge for universities is not simply whether to preserve historic buildings, but how to do so intelligently and sustainably within a fiscally constrained environment. This implies a strategic approach where preservation efforts are prioritized based on their alignment with overarching institutional goals (e.g., supporting STEM programs, enhancing student experience, bolstering brand identity), their potential to leverage external funding, and their capacity to generate long-term operational efficiencies (e.g., through energy savings).
Universities should develop a sophisticated "preservation index" 37 that goes beyond assessing mere historical significance. This index should integrate criteria related to functional utility, potential for modernization, and alignment with strategic academic and enrollment objectives. This data-driven approach ensures that preservation efforts are viewed and managed as strategic investments that yield tangible returns, rather than simply as unavoidable expenses.
8. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations
Historic campus buildings are invaluable, irreplaceable assets that significantly contribute to an institution's unique identity, brand appeal, and the overall student experience, serving as powerful recruitment and retention tools. The scale of deferred maintenance and the need for comprehensive retrofits across U.S. college campuses are immense, representing a staggering financial challenge exacerbated by the widespread aging of infrastructure and the imperative to adapt to modern educational and technological demands.
While historic retrofits present unique cost drivers and complexities, including higher labor costs, custom materials, and unforeseen conditions, they can often be more cost-effective and environmentally responsible than new construction when approached with meticulous planning and robust risk mitigation. Philanthropic support, although sometimes perceived to favor new builds, can be successfully cultivated for historic preservation projects by effectively articulating their brand value, sustainability benefits, and direct enhancement of the student experience. Declining enrollment poses a critical and compounding threat to university budgets, intensifying the deferred maintenance crisis and necessitating a strategic re-evaluation of campus footprints and investment priorities to maintain institutional competitiveness and viability.
To navigate these complex challenges and ensure the long-term sustainability of historic campus assets, the following actionable recommendations are proposed:
Develop a Comprehensive Historic Asset Management Plan: Institutions should move beyond merely listing National Register properties to conducting a holistic inventory of all older buildings. This plan should assess their historical significance, current condition, functional utility, and potential for adaptive reuse or strategic divestment, integrating these findings seamlessly into overall campus master planning.
Prioritize Strategic Preservation Investments: Focus retrofit efforts on historic buildings that offer the highest strategic value, aligning with core academic missions, enhancing the student experience, strengthening the institutional brand, and promising long-term operational efficiencies, particularly through energy savings.
Aggressively Pursue Diverse Funding Streams: Proactively identify and pursue all available federal and state historic preservation grants, historic tax incentives, and specialized non-profit funding opportunities. Investing in dedicated grant-writing and fundraising expertise specifically for historic projects is crucial to unlock these often-underutilized resources.
Refine Philanthropic Messaging for Historic Assets: Strategically frame historic building retrofits as investments in enduring institutional legacy, unique campus identity, and modern functionality, rather than simply as maintenance expenses. Emphasize the "return on identity" and the sustainability benefits to appeal to a broader and more diverse donor base.
Embrace Adaptive Reuse with Robust Due Diligence: Recognize adaptive reuse as a highly cost-effective and environmentally responsible strategy. However, allocate higher contingency budgets (7-10%) and invest significantly in thorough Historic Structure Reports (HSRs) and advanced technologies like 3D scanning to proactively identify and mitigate unforeseen conditions and costs.
Foster Collaborative Relationships with Preservation Authorities: Establish early and ongoing dialogue with local and state preservation agencies. View these relationships as opportunities to gain valuable technical support, expert guidance, and potential access to funding, while advocating for flexible interpretations of preservation standards where necessary for modernization and functionality.
Integrate Sustainability and Energy Efficiency as Core Objectives: Make energy-efficient upgrades (e.g., advanced HVAC systems, improved insulation, high-performance windows) a central component of all historic retrofit projects. This reduces long-term operational costs, aligns with institutional sustainability goals, and enhances appeal to environmentally conscious students and donors.
Implement Proactive Maintenance and Lifecycle Planning: Shift from a reactive, deferred maintenance approach to proactive, preventative maintenance for all critical historic assets. Utilize lifecycle costing models to gain a comprehensive understanding of the true long-term financial implications of owning and operating historic buildings, enabling more informed capital planning.
Contact us today to learn how we can assist the historical retrofit projects on your campus.
Works cited
VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF “HISTORIC”, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.appa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/513.pdf
Franklin College designated as a National Register Historic District, accessed July 31, 2025, https://franklincollege.edu/2025/01/09/franklin-college-designated-as-a-national-register-historic-district/
Evaluation of National Register Historic Districts Guidance from the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division, accessed July 31, 2025, https://nmhistoricpreservation.org/assets/files/rules-and-regulations/2023-dox/Guidance%20on%20Historic%20Districts-2023.pdf
National Register Criteria for Evaluation | NC HPO, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.hpo.nc.gov/historic-preservation/nc-national-register-historic-places/national-register-criteria-evaluation
Balancing Preservation and Progress: Why Universities Should Embrace Historic Landmark Designation - Buchart Horn, accessed July 31, 2025, https://bucharthorn.com/balancing-preservation-and-progress-why-universities-should-embrace-historic-landmark-designation/
Why colleges are updating historic buildings for the modern student, accessed July 31, 2025, https://universitybusiness.com/why-colleges-are-updating-historic-buildings-to-suit-the-modern-student/
evergreene.com, accessed July 31, 2025, https://evergreene.com/project_categories/education/#:~:text=The%20earliest%20date%20back%20to,and%20noteworthy%20fine%20art%20collections.
Giving New Life to Old Facilities - Tradeline, Inc., accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.tradelineinc.com/reports/2014-9/giving-new-life-old-facilities
RCED-98-51 Historic Preservation: Cost to Restore Historic Properties at Historically Black Colleges and Universities - GAO, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/rced-98-51.pdf
Historic Campus Transformation: Turning Dated University Buildings into Modern Research Hubs | RSP Architects, accessed July 31, 2025, https://rsparch.com/insight/historic-campus-transformation/
The real cost of deferred maintenance - Centrica Business Solutions, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.centricabusinesssolutions.com/us/blogpost/real-cost-deferred-maintenance
Combatting the Deferred Maintenance Crisis in Higher Ed, accessed July 31, 2025, https://info.higheredfacilitiesforum.com/blog/combatting-the-deferred-maintenance-crisis
Campus spending on existing buildings jumped over 26% in 2023 ..., accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.highereddive.com/news/college-facilities-building-investment-gordian/712337/
By the Numbers - Infrastructure (U.S. National Park Service), accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm
National Park Service Deferred Maintenance: Overview and Issues - Congress.gov, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48136
Insights - Benefits and Challenges of Adaptive Reuse in Higher ..., accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.weareprogressive.com/insights/benefits-and-challenges-of-adaptive-reuse-in-higher-education
What is Adaptive Reuse in 2025 - Examples & Pictures - gb&d magazine, accessed July 31, 2025, https://gbdmagazine.com/adaptive-reuse/
Cost Drivers of Historic Adaptive Reuse Projects - MGAC, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.mgac.com/blog/cost-drivers-of-historic-adaptive-reuse-projects/
The Power of Historic Structure Reports: Preserving Heritage Through Informed Restoration, accessed July 31, 2025, https://rdgusa.com/news/the-power-of-historic-structure-reports-preserving-heritage-through-informed-restoration
Preservation Briefs 43: The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports - National Park Service, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-43-historic-structure-reports.pdf
Historic Preservation Grants & Restoration Funding Opportunities, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.buildingrestoration.com/historic-preservation-restoration-grants/
Grants & Funding Sources, PreservationDirectory.com - Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Management Resources and Research Tools for Historical Societies, Organizations and the General Public -, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.preservationdirectory.com/preservationgeneralresources/grantsfundingsources.aspx
A peek inside Marston Hall - Inside Iowa State, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.inside.iastate.edu/article/2015/05/21/marston
Renovation of Marston Hall: Historic Home of the College of Engineering, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.engineering.iastate.edu/marston/files/2013/08/MarstonHall.pdf
History of Marston Hall - Iowa State Daily, accessed July 31, 2025, https://iowastatedaily.com/92400/dct/history-of-marston-hall/
Moving day - Inside Iowa State, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.inside.iastate.edu/article/2016/07/21/marston
Skanska Revitalizes University of Virginia's Historic Edgar Shannon Library - Buildings, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.buildings.com/resiliency-sustainability/article/55001410/skanska-revitalizes-the-historic-edgar-shannon-library-at-the-university-of-virginia-originally-constructed-in-1938
At UVA, $160 million Alderman Library renovation plans come into focus, accessed July 31, 2025, https://library.virginia.edu/node/1283
Normally calm University of Michigan Law Quad abuzz with activity as renovation project begins, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbors-usually-serene-and/
$20 million gift jumpstarts renovation at M Law's Lawyers Club, accessed July 31, 2025, https://news.umich.edu/20-million-gift-jumpstarts-renovation-at-m-laws-lawyers-club/
Why preservation? What are the benefits? - Preservation Virginia, accessed July 31, 2025, https://preservationvirginia.org/why-preservation-what-are-the-benefits/
Who loses if US colleges lose international students? - Brookings Institution, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/who-loses-if-us-colleges-lose-international-students/
Why this small university's campus sale offers new look for sector, accessed July 31, 2025, https://universitybusiness.com/why-this-small-universitys-campus-sale-offers-new-look-for-sector/
No Department of Education? Here's How It Could Impact Enrollment - The Parish Group, accessed July 31, 2025, https://parishgroup.com/2025/02/no-department-of-education-heres-how-it-could-impact-enrollment/
After building spree, college maintenance spending hits 11-year high | Higher Ed Dive, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.highereddive.com/news/after-building-spree-college-maintenance-spending-hits-11-year-high/544851/
2010 - 2011 Major Capital Projects Implementation Report - University of California | Office of The President, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.ucop.edu/design-construction-services/resources/major-capital-projects-implementation-reports/majcap1011.pdf
Historic Preservation - UIUC Facilities and Services, accessed July 31, 2025, https://fs.illinois.edu/historic-preservation/
Analyzing the Critical Impediments to Retrofitting Historic Buildings to Achieve Net Zero Emissions, accessed July 31, 2025, https://openconstructionbuildingtechnologyjournal.com/VOLUME/18/ELOCATOR/e18748368357448/FULLTEXT/
Futureproofing education: Retrofitting university estates - Pick Everard, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.pickeverard.co.uk/insights/retrofitting-university-estates
Retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency - ABM Perspectives, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.abm.com/perspectives/retrofitting-buildings-for-efficiency-strategies-for-office-healthcare-schools-and-more
The ROI on BIM for FM: How facility management data improves retrofits | Eptura, accessed July 31, 2025, https://eptura.com/discover-more/blog/how-facility-management-data-improves-retrofits/
Modernizing Electrical Systems: The Benefits of Electrical Retrofitting for Older Commercial Buildings - Amtek Construction, accessed July 31, 2025, https://amtekconstruction.com/modernizing-electrical-systems-the-benefits-of-electrical-retrofitting-for-older-commercial-buildings/
Wired for the Future: Transforming Homes with Electrical Retrofitting, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.kennedyelectricfl.com/blog/wired-for-the-future-transforming-homes-with-electrical-retrofitting
Energy-Saving Lighting Controls For A Historic Building - McClure Engineering, accessed July 31, 2025, https://mcclureeng.com/energy-saving-lighting-controls-for-a-historic-building/
Transforming Historic Buildings With Electrical Retrofitting, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.eliteelectrical.co.uk/transforming-londons-historic-buildings-the-challenges-of-electrical-retrofitting/
Power Over Ethernet (PoE): Driving Green Building Solutions - MHT Technologies, accessed July 31, 2025, https://mht-technologies.com/power-over-ethernet-green-building-solutions/
Power Over Ethernet for Smarter, Sustainable Office Design - LINAK, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.linak-us.com/segments/deskline/tech-and-trends/poe/
General 6 — August Berres battery-powered Agile Workplaces, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.augustberres.com/news
Smart buildings, explained - here's what they mean for the built environment, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.ube.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/smart-buildings/
Smart Building Technology: Revolutionizing Modern Infrastructure - CIM.io, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.cim.io/blog/smart-building-technology-revolutionizing-modern-infrastructure
Complete guide to IoT smart buildings - Smarter Technologies, accessed July 31, 2025, https://smartertechnologies.com/guides/the-complete-guide-to-iot-smart-buildings/
Building Automation Upgrades | Trane Commercial HVAC, accessed July 31, 2025, https://www.trane.com/commercial/north-america/us/en/connected-buildings/upgrades-retrofitting.html
Retrofitting Old Building Control Systems With New Tech - A&G Services, accessed July 31, 2025, https://agservicestx.com/retrofitting-old-buildings-modern-control-systems/
The Fundamentals of Agile Office Space Design - illustrarch, accessed July 31, 2025, https://illustrarch.com/articles/44101-the-fundamentals-of-agile-office-space-design.html
Agile home renovation - The Monthly Method, accessed July 31, 2025, https://monthlymethod.com/agile-home-renovation/
From Waterfall to Agile: Rethinking Remodeling Through Scrum - Lean Construction Blog, accessed July 31, 2025, https://leanconstructionblog.com/From-Waterfall-to-Agile-Rethinking-Remodeling-Through-Scrum.html
