Matt Adams is president of The Adams Consulting Group, a management/ engineering consulting firm located in Atlanta, Georgia, specializing in the facility maintenance and management within higher education, school districts, and other institutions. He can be reached at matt@adams-grp.com.

Several times each year one or more administrators or the provost survey the facility stock. Each time they look for more useable space. It's almost a clichÄ to suggest that there is never enough. Today, this old slogan is becoming more and more real. The last of "Generation X" and the new "Generation Y" students are quite particular about their education. Some programs like education or engineering remain popular while others are redesigned to be more specialized. Art studies as a major is too general and now is broken down into Computer Graphic Design or Art Therapy or other niches. Some middle-sized to smaller institutions are even forced to abandon dated programs and replace them with more "market sensitive" courses.

This year, for the first time in history, over 15 million students are enrolled in our colleges. The number will continue to increase for at least the next five years by as much as 200,000 per year. The physical demand created by this enormous population of students is profound. Even 15 years ago, when class enrollments of 100, 200, or more were common, this demand would be a problem. However, the physical standards of learning have changed, and educational programs have changed as well.

All of the new standards improve the quality of education for students while drastically exacerbating existing shortages of space. The cost to construct new space to fill the need is prohibitive. The resulting reduction in measured classroom utilization created by new space also seems blatantly wasteful. The sensible way to meet this new demand is to closely examine the existing inventories. Proper analysis reveals new possibilities for the reuse or recycling of current space.

Prior to the current scramble by many institutions to reinvent themselves in order to remain competitive, one segment had previously figured out this changing market's demands. The community colleges have always operated with a nimbleness that allowed the flexibility to alter or invent new programs to meet market demand. This demand is created by both industry (the ones hiring the graduates) as well as the new students themselves (education is now a "right" and they are particular buyers). This higher standard now extends to the other 2,400 institutions of higher learning and it has had a profound effect. This new dynamic affects space inventories in two significant ways: Space used for years in a traditional course of study must be altered to serve a radically new "market sensitive" program, and the ratios of almost every resource (faculty, teaching assistants, computer hardware, desk space, etc.) to the number of students must be decreased considerably.

As the Business Communication Program expands and the Home Economics Program contracts, the space is altered and reused. Unfortunately, old space is not always easy to recycle. At least 30 percent of the nation's building stock was constructed prior to 1960. The flexible classroom design was not widely embraced at the time. Entire buildings were built to meet the physical needs of programs that today are no longer popular. New construction is the obvious solution but not practical. The only way to make use of old space is to specifically test its ability to be recycled. Each space demand is clearly defined and compared with the physical analysis of available "reusable" space. For example:

This type of analysis is appropriate in maximizing the utilization of existing space inventories. In this way, the wish-list is paired with the current physical description. The next step is to identify the basic actions required to reuse space and qualify their availability. In the most basic sense there are only a few actions that can affect the space. They are as follows.

• Upgrade the technological capacity of the space: Almost without exception, space constructed 10 or more years ago is in need of technology upgrades for any use. In particular is the need for multiple campus network connections ideally one per student or occupant if not classroom space. Other improvements might be fume hoods, modular service connections, Audio/video projection equipment, and program specific equipment (Berkeley desks for Graphics design programs). Upgrading the technology of space is costly. However, the new technology costs are present in new construction as well. The constraint for this upgrade is often physical. Some space is very hard to rewire. The cooling capacity of the associated system may not allow new electrical equipment. The electrical distribution to the space may also be inadequate. Identification of insurmountable constraints is coupled with summarized cost estimated for "turn-key" technology upgrades for adequate input into the decision process.
• Repartition the space: A shortage of office space and an abundance of inappropriately sized classrooms are common campus space issues. Movable office partitions and folding class partitions offer easy options for larger spaces that require increased density. The physical structure may prevent this in relation to natural lighting, sound control, or egress. Space with insurmountable physical constraints preventing repartitioning is inventoried as a "low reuse" stock. Space that readily allows partitioning remains an active consideration to avoid new construction. Cost is rarely a constraint for this consideration.
• Replace furniture and fixtures: Lab benches, fume hoods, sinks, safety showers, and other fixtures are expensive to install and sometimes difficult to remove. However, in comparison to new construction, the cost may be more practical. By qualifying the existing furniture and the potential and costs associated with refitting, the reuse potential of the space is revealed. Sunk costs are lost. The cost to remove a dry-lab bench in order to create a computer classroom is better that constructing that classroom for one to two hundred dollars per square foot.

Each possible recycle comparison illustrates, on paper, the relative feasibility of altering the space for new use. In earlier years, space was considered for reuse in only less intensive forms, e.g. large classrooms were divided into several offices. The great demand for more intensive and technologically modern space requires the option of recycling space into more intensive uses. The costs of new construction is much less often justified when objective analysis of existing space inventories is utilized.