News & Insights

University administrators and facility managers are being asked to support institutions that have changed dramatically, often with infrastructure built around decisions made decades ago. Enrollment projections, research intensity, how a given building would be used, and how much power and thermal capacity that use would demand were all established at design time and built into feeders, plants, and distribution networks. The infrastructure has held up. The assumptions haven’t.

The useful question goes beyond whether a system still works. What matters is whether it still fits the campus it serves. A condition assessment confirms that the equipment is functioning. It won’t tell you that equipment is now supporting a building, a research program, or a load it was never designed for.

That gap is clearest to the people who run the systems day-to-day. Drawings don’t capture how thirty years of renovations changed what a building demands – but the person who has operated that plant through a heat wave knows exactly where it strains. The task for campus leaders is to recognize that misalignment before a failure does, and to understand what makes infrastructure adaptable enough to keep pace with where the institution is going next

How campus infrastructure falls out of alignment

A campus expands one project at a time – a research wing ties into an existing utility loop, a central plant grows to cover a new quad, a classroom building becomes a lab. Each decision is reasonable on its own. But older institutions that began with one or two buildings and grew to hundreds are rarely running a coherent system. They’re running a sediment of eras, each layer added to solve the problem in front of it, none designed with the others in mind. Every building renovation is also an infrastructure decision – even when nobody treats it that way.

That accumulation produces a specific and dangerous consequence: single points of failure that nobody chose. Campuses generally invest well in capacity. Where they fall short is hunting for the one component whose loss takes an entire building, or several, offline. That component was never specified. It emerged, one tie-in at a time, and stayed invisible during normal operation, surfacing at the worst possible moment: a summer peak, a hard freeze, a storm that pushes systems past their margins.

Finding these weak points early is a matter of seeing the campus clearly, and clarity here is operational. It means knowing where an outage is, how far it extends, which loads it affects, and whether resources can be shifted from one part of campus to another to work around it. That kind of clarity supports a decision, rather than simply feeding a dashboard. Someone who has run a plant recognizes the failure mode a drawing won’t flag – the redundant path that was never truly independent, the load that outgrew its feed. Campuses without that visibility are navigating their own risk in the dark.

Why repurposed campus buildings strain aging infrastructure

Repurposed buildings reveal this mismatch faster than any other part of campus. Utilities originally sized around occupant comfort are suddenly asked to support incubators, sterilization, specialized ventilation, and minus-30 research freezers – loads that won’t tolerate interruption.

The challenges are mobility and time. During an outage, a campus can consolidate students into a single active building and wait out the disruption, but it can’t relocate years of research sitting in freezers and incubators.

Also, a well-built building can hold temperature for hours during an outage, but a research freezer or incubator can lose its contents fast. So, continuity planning should weigh how quickly its loss becomes irreversible. A loss of power measured in minutes can end a decade of work.

Resilience priorities need to reflect what cannot be moved and what cannot wait.

This is where campus priorities can outpace facilities planning. Academic and research decisions can change a building’s utility, and continuity needs years before capital plans catch up. A repurposed building carries more than a new function. It imports a set of continuity requirements into a structure that was never designed to meet them.

Building infrastructure that can evolve with the campus

Because the campus will keep changing, the objective is to create infrastructure flexible enough to serve demands nobody has defined yet. While every campus requires a different approach, adaptable infrastructure typically shares several characteristics.

Centrally located resources delivered through a distributed infrastructure are one way to achieve that flexibility. Instead of duplicating backup equipment in every building, shared central resources spread redundancy across multiple facilities, extending resilience further for the same investment.

None of this requires hardening every building against every scenario, which no institution can afford. It requires identifying single points of failure before projects begin, designing flexibility into new construction, and treating every major renovation as an infrastructure planning exercise rather than just a building project.

Why campus resilience loses the capital planning fight

People running campuses understand this. The challenge is the way resilience competes for capital. A new microscope brings in researchers and grant dollars. New switchgear brings in nothing visible until the day it stops working. In that competition, the resilient investment lands at the bottom of the list and stays there until a failure moves it to the top at the worst possible time.

Timing makes the delay expensive. Redundancy designed into new construction barely registers against the total project cost. Retrofitted later, the same redundancy is a hard problem, and often a physical one: older buildings frequently have no room for a second pump, because the space was sized precisely for the original equipment and nothing more. The easiest resilience investment is the one made before the building needs it.

How Salas O’Brien can help

Every campus has different infrastructure challenges. Some are planning for growth. Others are modernizing aging systems, adapting facilities to serve new academic or research programs, or working to understand where decades of incremental change have left them exposed. The right path forward depends on where the institution starts from and what it is working toward.

Salas O’Brien helps colleges and universities evaluate infrastructure capacity, utility systems, asset conditions, and long-term capital needs before major planning decisions are made. Many of our engineers have operated the plants, powerhouses, and facilities organizations they now advise, so we see what a condition assessment misses – the single points of failure that accumulated one tie-in at a time, and the repurposed buildings whose continuity needs outran their design. That operational grounding is what turns a condition assessment into a capital plan that an institution can actually sequence and defend.

Infrastructure will always outlive the assumptions it was built around. The institutions that stay ahead of it keep realigning their infrastructure with the campus they’re becoming, rather than trying to stop the change itself.

To discuss where your campus stands today, reach out to our contributor below or at [email protected].

For media inquiries on this article, reach out to [email protected].