By Denzil D’Sa and Jack Carter

Across California, universities are racing to meet the evolving demands of today’s students — none more urgent than the need for on-campus housing. Once considered “commuter colleges”, many public institutions are now experiencing a seismic shift as more students seek a residential university experience. This change is reshaping campus master plans and challenging school leaders to rethink how student housing is delivered — faster, smarter and with less disruption.

For example, California’s CSU (California State University) and UC (University of California) systems are facing a mounting student housing crisis fueled by rising enrollment, limited on-campus housing, and unaffordable rental markets surrounding many campuses. Combined, these pressures have left tens of thousands of students without stable housing options. UC campuses report a shortfall of more than 20,000 beds, while CSU estimates its gap to be over 14,000. This has left many students on lengthy waitlists, commuting extreme distances, or facing housing insecurity that directly impacts their ability to succeed.

Responding to the Housing Crisis with Innovation

Enter Progressive Design-Build (PDB), a collaborative, solutions-forward delivery method that’s helping universities break ground faster and open doors sooner, all while maintaining quality and cost control. This design-build model has reshaped what’s possible, allowing companies like McCarthy, a long-standing partner in California’s higher education landscape, to deliver more than 5,000 student beds in the last four years.

From Concept to Completion in Record Time

At San Francisco State University (SFSU), the clock was ticking. The campus urgently needed student housing to support its growing population and improve the student experience. Thanks to the Progressive Design-Build (PDB) delivery method, project stakeholders were engaged from the very first design workshop through to ribbon-cutting — enabling the construction and delivery of 700 beds in just 17 months. That pace makes it the fastest-delivered housing project in the California State University (CSU) system to date.

Early alignment with the university, designers — EHDD Architecture, and trade partners allowed the team to evaluate options, control costs and iterate in real time — rather than waiting for full design completion before pricing and procurement. This approach built deep trust between the university and the design-build team, a critical element for making decisions at speed.

Speed was supported not just by process, but by purpose. The team prioritized minimizing disruption to ongoing campus life, particularly since construction occurred during active school sessions. Deliveries and site activities were coordinated around academic calendars to reduce noise, traffic and student impact — especially during finals and move-in weeks.

Student-centered thinking also influenced material selection and scheduling. The design and preconstruction teams worked closely with SFSU to choose materials that supported the campus vision while navigating the constraints of an occupied site. “Through the early partnership with SFSU, we were able to release long lead items — like electrical equipment — early to ensure timely delivery,” shared McCarthy Building Companies Senior Project Engineer Lana Jarnutowski.

Operations personnel were brought in early to contribute to design decisions and foster strong collaboration with the broader team. According to Jarnutowski, that trust laid the groundwork for seamless field execution. “Together, we designed and built a place where 700 people can call home. That is something we should all be proud of.”

The result? A state-of-the-art student housing community delivered not just on time, but ahead of expectations. Today, SFSU has a signature facility that reflects its evolving identity, enhances student success, and supports a vibrant living-learning environment.

The success of this project demonstrates the power of early collaboration and flexible delivery models — an approach that’s now being used to accelerate other projects across California.

Scaling the Model Across California

Following the success at SFSU, McCarthy’s approach is scaling across multiple campuses. At UC Riverside, a similar progressive design-build model is being combined with prefabricated Cold Form Steel (CFS) panels to deliver 1,500 student beds in just 23 months. This evolving delivery method — Progressive Design-Build + Prefab = Accelerated Results — is now being applied at UC Davis, where the team is building on lessons learned to enhance speed, quality and efficiency on its next major student housing project.

This kind of “rolling expertise” is critical for higher education systems managing multiple projects across different locations. Rather than starting from scratch each time, institutional leaders can rely on proven delivery partners to bring transferable knowledge, repeatable systems and a tested playbook for success.

The Shift from Commuter to Campus Community

Behind all these housing projects lies a deeper story. Once known as commuter schools, institutions like SFSU and UC Riverside are now embracing a residential campus identity, providing students with immersive, community-oriented environments. This is not just about beds; it’s about creating spaces where students can thrive, learn and grow.

Amenities such as study lounges, wellness spaces, community kitchens, and outdoor courtyards are no longer “nice to have” — they are expectations. And because design-build teams are engaged early, these features can be designed, priced, and integrated efficiently into the plan without creating late-stage cost overruns or schedule delays.

Driven by student needs and supported by delivery innovation, this shift is shaping a new era of campus development. Institutions are turning complexity into clarity and crisis into opportunity. They’re reimagining the college experience not as a logistical challenge, but as a chance to create spaces that reflect their mission and meet the real needs of their students.

As funding opportunities like California’s $2 billion Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program continue to drive new projects forward, the importance of smart, student-centered delivery models will only grow.

Denzil D’Sa is Preconstruction Director and Jack Carter is Vice President, Project Executive with

The post Student First Mentality: How Progressive Design-Build is Accelerating the Student Housing Response in California appeared first on Â鶹¸ŁŔűÍř.

The post Student First Mentality: How Progressive Design-Build is Accelerating the Student Housing Response in California appeared first on Â鶹¸ŁŔűÍř.

SAN DIEGO — The first-ever -hosted took place on Feb. 12 at the University of San Diego. Despite the rainy weather, the event brought in close to 400 attendees and focused on the planning, development, construction and design of higher education facilities and university housing units. In particular, the two sessions and variety of expert panelists dove into the deliverability of student housing—as well as the trends and current challenges and realities that developers, AEC professionals and end users are experiencing. Ěý

Kicking off the half-day event, Joseph Von Meier, partner at CGS3, moderated the first presentation, “Developing & Designing the Next Generation Of Student Housing.” Panelists included Hemlata Jhaveri, senior associate vice chancellor for residential, retail and supply chain services, UC San Diego; Alex Leonard, senior director of development, Greystar; Eric Naslund, principal, Studio E; Guy Carpino, engineering principal, Michael Baker International; Jason Dunster, senior integrated design director, McCarthy Building Companies; and Chris Sullivan, project director, Sundt. Von Meier explored a few topics but key among them was delivering cost-effective solutions for student populations, while not sacrificing quality, design and safety. Ěý

Both Jhaveri and Dunster discussed how student housing facility design has shifted and how both facility operators and AEC professionals are responding to students’ changing needs. “Since COVID, we are really looking at amenities that set [students] up for success,” explained Jhaveri. Ěý

Panelists dove into those amenities and how facility owners/operators are spending money wisely based on the needs of the current student population. Some “standout amenities” that have become popular for on- and off-campus student housing, according to Dunster, include more indoor/outdoor community spaces to prepare students for a remote workforce and create healthy habits around work-life balance; creating gathering spaces through unconventional spaces that are “typically hidden”, including laundry areas; outdoor security that blend into the natural environment; and student-favorite rooftop terraces. Ěý

In conjunction with creating community spaces, on-campus facilities departments are prioritizing mental health programming through residential programs. While these programs vary from campus to campus, in general, programming is all about building a safe community space to thrive, including offering wellness activities, cooking courses, community gardening, residential events and more.Ěý

While providing high-end amenities to student populations at an affordable price is desirable for many owner/operators, there are obvious barriers. However, panelists explored tried-and-true construction and delivery methods to help mitigate some of these challenges, including prefabrication.

“We are seeing a faster construction timeframe by utilizing prefab buildings…and the quality is really the same, so we are able to complete projects faster and more efficiently by incorporating these different methods,” said Sullivan.Ěý

The session concluded with a reminder to the audience that collaboration between project teams and stakeholders continues to be paramount to deliver attractive housing solutions to tenants that also meet the demand of the area—and the longevity of student populations.Ěý

Addressing the Housing CrisisĚý

After a packed networking break, where attendees had access to an exhibit space to meet with Bisnow sponsors—including Gensler, Sundt, Studio E Architects, Elen Consulting, CGS3 Law, McCarthy, Michael Baker International, McCullough Landscape Architects, Fenagh Engineering and Testing, and KTGY—the second session kicked off with moderator David McCullough, principal at McCollough Landscape Architecture. Ěý

The panel, “Accommodating the Growing Student Body Throughout San Diego,” included Bob Schulz, university architect and associate vice president of real estate, San Diego State University; Abbie Hawkins, vice president of development, The Michaels Organization; Rudy Medina, founder and development director, Next Space Development; Richard King, principal, Gensler; and David Senden, principal, KTGY.Ěý

A key theme of the discussion was reframing the dire lack of student house as a true “housing crisis” and not just a student housing crisis. Many panelists agreed that finding solutions has shifted to not just looking at on-campus housing for students, but to considering entire geographic areas that are facing housing shortages. This includes how to deliver cost-effective solutions both on and off campus and desiging for the lifestyles of current students and younger generations. Ěý

One of the guiding themes was an understanding that this generation of students is different than those previous. Many college students are staying in “student housing” beyond graduation, which is changing the approach to housing design. Ěý

“What we are seeing in San Diego, which is unique to this area, is that there’s jobs and opportunity, but it’s expensive,” said King. “For example, San Marcos (where Cal State San Marcos is located) has tripled its population in the last five years. The enrollment rates [at Cal State San Marcos] are continuing to grow and the students that are going to these schools are staying in these communities after graduation and working, which is great to have that talent contributing to the economy here.” Ěý

To accommodate current and former students throughout their milestones, designers are providing high-end aesthetics and amenities.Ěý

Delivering a student housing unit or community is so rewarding—when it eventually comes online, according to Medina, Hawkins and Senden. The three panelists spoke on the building permit process and how local government can ease the housing strain by loosening certain parameters and helping to expedite processes.Ěý

“The challenges for housing—both off-campus and on-campus housing have the same challenges—is that people don’t want students as their neighbors, it’s difficult to secure funding and wait times for permits can be up to three years. So, it’s really hard to get these projects done,” said Medina.Ěý

Hawkins also reminded the audience of SB169, which was part of the 2021-22 California State Budget and established a program of one-time grants for the construction of student housing as well as 50% of funding for housing for California Community Colleges. While only 12 community colleges in the state currently have on-campus student housing, there is much more of an untapped market to explore and develop if ongoing funding allows, according to Hawkins.Ěý

The event concluded by leaders signaling that the student housing market is certainly a robust area of higher education construction, and with an emphasis on creating long-lasting structures to serve the community for tenants beyond their studies, new approaches and ways to deliver buildings efficiently continues to be a hot topic for facility directors and the design and construction community.Ěý

Upcoming Bisnow EventsĚýĚý

Other in-person southern California Bisnow events include the on Feb. 25, the on March 13 and the on April 10.Ěý

Other national student housing events include the in-person on April 30 as well as the in-person on June 18.Ěý

For more information on the Bisnow San Diego Student Housing Summit, or to get involved in future events, please contact Samantha D’Angelo, senior event producer, at samantha.dangelo@bisnow.com.

The post Bisnow’s San Diego Student Housing Summit Tackles Affordability, Accessibility and Deliverability appeared first on Â鶹¸ŁŔűÍř.

The post Bisnow’s San Diego Student Housing Summit Tackles Affordability, Accessibility and Deliverability appeared first on Â鶹¸ŁŔűÍř.

The first principle calls for learning environments that enhance teaching and learning and accommodate the needs of all learners. This principle follows research that supports the idea of students creating rather than re-creating knowledge; students doing rather than just receiving information; and students solving problems through more cooperative, project-based, interdisciplinary learning with an emphasis on learning styles, multiple intelligences, and the special needs of each student.

The second principle emphasizes the need for schools to serve as centers of the community by accommodating community use after hours and on weekends. Additionally, schools should serve as centers of lifelong learning and provide the community access to theater arts, recreation, and technology.

The third principle suggests that school designs should result from a planning and design process involving all stakeholders, including educators, parents, students, and community representatives-respecting differences in age, culture, and gender.

The fourth principle addresses the need to provide for adequate health, safety, and security through more appropriate school and classroom populations; by addressing all safety and environmental codes; maintaining healthy indoor environments, and through careful planning to minimize safety obstacles.

The fifth principle suggests that school designs should make effective use of all available resources, resulting in the creation of facility and landscape designs that serve as “three dimensional textbooks.” Designs should maximize the use of technology, community resources and, where possible, re-use existing facilities to preserve natural and historic environments.

The sixth principle calls for the design of learning environments that allow for flexibility and adaptability to changing needs. Planning should incorporate flexible designs and adaptable systems to accommodate what is not yet known. Additionally, ongoing evaluations of master plans and educational specifications should be conducted at least every five years.

Also included in the mix-and considered as part of the evaluation process-were Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs), submitted with a few projects. A POE is an assessment of a facility’s performance to determine whether or not it is functioning as intended. Juror Jeffrey Lackney expands on the process in the POE section.

The post Evaluation Process appeared first on Â鶹¸ŁŔűÍř.

The post Evaluation Process appeared first on Â鶹¸ŁŔűÍř.