Examining Universities’ Construction Projects to better understand their Civic and Sustainability Ambitions

This thesis examines how civic universities enact and materialise their civic and sustainability commitments through major campus construction projects. While civic universities are currently being studied regarding how they realise their civic engagement commitment (Dobson & Ferrari, 2023; Dobson & Owolade, 2025), this thesis focuses on a less examined but highly significant civic activity: engagement during the campus construction phase. These construction operations are not merely technical zones of delivery; they are spatially embodied expressions of their civic responsibility. By examining how universities involve neighbouring communities during construction, this thesis positions campus sites as critical interfaces where civic responsibility is either realised or undermined. Despite financial constraints impacting UK higher education, many institutions have pursued ambitious development schemes positioned as emblematic of civic renewal and environmental responsibility (Office for Students, 2023; Whyte, 2023). By comparing case studies of Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) and the University of Sheffield (UOS), this research shows how campus construction reflects the interplay of multiple institutional logics. Empirical data collected between 2023 and 2024 included document analysis, semi-structured interviews with university leaders, estates and sustainability staff, contractors, city planners, and residents affected by UOS's construction, alongside site observations. Through a thematic analysis, the findings revealed that both universities invoke multiple logics—civic, environmental, academic, market, financial, and reputational—to legitimise campus investment, although their emphasis and configuration differ. Second, architectural forms expressed civic logic but were also shaped by planning regulations: SHU’s restrained, grid-aligned design contrasts with UOS’s iconic spectacle, each reflecting regulatory codes. Third, sustainability implementation varied between the institutions: SHU adopted a pragmatic zero-carbon-ready approach, with perceived biodiversity gains, while UOS pursued a capital-intensive net-zero operational building, with perceived biodiversity loss. Additionally, the thesis identified an implementation gap between universities’ civic engagement rhetoric and actual construction-phase engagement practices, analysed through Arnstein’s Participation Ladder. SHU’s engagement was tokenistic; whereas UOS’s was reactive and nonparticipatory. Procurement models emerged as a determinant of engagement and accountability: SHU’s alliance fostered shared accountability, whereas UOS’s Novated Design & Build led to institutional disengagement. This study advances understanding of the spatial materialisation of institutional logics, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability in higher education estates. It contributes to knowledge by reimagining campus construction as a “civic interface”—a space for expressing and testing institutional civicness. The study advocates for embedding social value in procurement, adopting holistic sustainability approaches, and fostering genuine community collaboration.