High-voltage power transmission towers silhouetted against the sun, illustrating how AI-driven demand is stressing U.S. power grid infrastructure and exposing permitting delays.

The AI Power Crunch Isn’t a Technology Problem … It’s a Permitting One

  • Construction & The Economy, Technology & Innovation
AI-driven demand is pushing the power grid to its limits, but the real constraint isn’t generation, but how slowly infrastructure moves through permitting, interconnection and approval.

America’s largest power grid operator is sounding an alarm, and on the surface, it looks like an energy story.

Recent reporting by The Wall Street Journal on the PJM Interconnection, which supplies electricity across 13 states from New Jersey to Illinois, paints a stark picture: soaring demand from AI-driven data centers, aging power plants retiring faster than replacements can come online and a grid edging closer to reliability limits during extreme weather.

Consumers are already seeing higher rates. Policymakers are warning about rolling blackouts. Tech companies, according to WSJ, are pushing back on proposals that would force them to curb usage during peak demand.

It’s tempting to frame this as a problem of insufficient power — too many servers, not enough electrons.

But look closer, and a different story emerges.

The United States isn’t running out of energy technology. It isn’t lacking capital, innovation or even shovel-ready projects. What it’s running into is the outer edge of a system designed to approve infrastructure slowly, sequentially and in silos — a system that hasn’t kept pace with the speed of modern demand.

The AI power crunch isn’t just stressing the grid but exposing a deeper failure in how the country plans, permits and coordinates the infrastructure that keeps the lights on.

Demand is moving faster than the system that approves supply

For decades, electricity demand across much of the U.S. was flat. Planning models assumed incremental growth. Permitting timelines — often measured in years — were frustrating but manageable.

That world no longer exists.

Data centers, electrification and industrial reshoring have rewritten demand forecasts in a matter of years, not decades. In regions like PJM, peak-load projections have jumped sharply, driven in large part by hyperscale computing facilities that draw enormous amounts of power around the clock.

At the same time, the infrastructure required to support that growth — high-voltage transmission lines, substations and new generation — moves far more slowly. The US Department of Energy has made clear that thousands of miles of new transmission are needed each year to maintain reliability and integrate new resources. In practice, recent construction has delivered only a fraction of that pace.

This mismatch matters because the power system can’t be expanded retroactively.

Permitting frameworks require utilities and developers to demonstrate need based on forecasts, not hindsight. Yet approving large infrastructure projects for projected demand — especially demand tied to private data center investment — invites scrutiny from regulators, ratepayer advocates and local communities.

The result is a planning paradox: Agencies are asked to move faster than ever while justifying decisions under rules built for slower, more predictable growth.

In that environment, delay isn’t a bug, but the default outcome.

The interconnection bottleneck: Where projects go to wait

If transmission permitting governs how power moves, interconnection governs whether it exists at all.

Interconnection is the process by which new power plants — solar, wind, storage, gas or nuclear — are studied and approved to connect to the grid. It’s meant to be a technical checkpoint. In practice, it has become the single largest choke point in U.S. power development.

Across the country, interconnection queues now contain proposed generation capacity that exceeds the size of the entire existing power fleet. The overwhelming majority of that capacity is clean energy or storage. And yet, historically, fewer than one in five projects that enter these queues ever reach completion.

Nowhere has this breakdown been more visible than at PJM.

Facing an unmanageable backlog, WSJ reports that PJM halted new applications and overhauled its process, shifting from a first-come, first-served system to a first-ready model that forces developers to demonstrate site control and financial commitment before moving forward. The goal: to clear speculation and focus resources on projects that could realistically be built.

The reform is necessary. It’s also revealing.

Even as PJM processes its backlog, a critical fact has emerged: Tens of gigawatts of generation have already cleared PJM’s studies and secured interconnection agreements — and still aren’t online. From the grid operator’s perspective, these projects are approved.

What’s holding them back isn’t grid math. It’s everything that comes after.

Local siting approvals. Environmental reviews. Community opposition. Sequential agency signoffs that don’t align. Supply chain constraints triggered by upstream permitting delays. Interconnection reform can speed up the front of the pipeline, but it can’t fix a delivery system where the remaining gates are disconnected and slow.

That’s the quiet truth beneath today’s grid headlines: Fixing one bottleneck doesn’t help if the rest of the process still breaks the project.

Why permitting still slows projects

It’s easy to assume that once a project clears federal environmental review or secures an interconnection agreement, the hardest work is done.

Yet that’s often when the most unpredictable delays begin.

Federal agencies have made progress compressing environmental review timelines. Statutory deadlines now exist for major reviews, and median completion times have come down.

On paper, the process is moving faster.

But averages hide a more important truth: The projects that matter most — large, complex, region-shaping infrastructure — still move slowly. Not because agencies ignore deadlines, but because the stakes of getting them wrong are high.

For these projects, permitting isn’t a linear checklist, but a web of overlapping approvals, sequential decisions and legal exposure that stretches far beyond any single review.

A federal environmental approval, for example, doesn’t clear the way for construction. It signals the start of a new phase involving state siting boards, local zoning authorities, land-use negotiations, utility commissions and, often, the courts. Each step introduces new actors, standards and opportunities for delay.

Litigation risk amplifies the problem. Even when agencies ultimately prevail, the cost of losing time — sometimes years — can be fatal to a project’s financing or schedule. The rational response is defensive documentation: longer reviews, thicker reports and more exhaustive analysis designed to withstand scrutiny rather than move quickly.

The system complies with the law but slows itself down in the process.

Beyond the courtroom, coordination failures compound the drag. Reviews are often sequential, not concurrent. One agency waits for another before acting. A late-stage change can trigger re-review across multiple jurisdictions. Timelines drift not because anyone says no, but because no one is empowered to align the work.

This is how projects end up approved but stalled — cleared at the regional level yet immobilized by the cumulative weight of disconnected decisions.

The irony is that these delays are rarely caused by a single fatal flaw. More often, they emerge from late discovery: a routing conflict identified after years of planning, a stakeholder concern raised after documents are finalized, a condition imposed after design decisions have hardened. Problems found late are expensive to fix and politically difficult to resolve.

Today’s permitting bottlenecks aren’t just about speed but timing.

When process fails, infrastructure becomes a political fight

When permitting systems break down, infrastructure stops being a technical or administrative challenge and becomes a political flashpoint.

Projects are no longer evaluated primarily on engineering merit or public need. They become symbols — of federal overreach, environmental neglect, local disenfranchisement or corporate influence. Once that shift happens, timelines stretch not because the work is hard, but because consensus collapses.

Large grid projects are especially vulnerable. Transmission lines cross jurisdictions. Generation reshapes landscapes. Data centers raise questions about who benefits and who pays. Each layer of review introduces a new venue for opposition, often long after initial decisions have been made.

A project clears one authority only to be stalled by another. Local boards revisit issues already studied at the federal level. State agencies impose conditions that ripple back through design. Elected officials reopen settled questions under public pressure.

None of these actions are irrational on their own. Together, they grind progress to a halt.

Once a project enters this phase, even technical fixes struggle to regain momentum. Reviews are re-litigated in public forums. Agencies grow more cautious. Developers hesitate to commit capital. The process slows further, reinforcing the perception that infrastructure itself is broken.

The grid doesn’t fail all at once. It frays.

What helps — and what doesn’t

When grid projects stall, the instinct is to look for a single fix: change the law, shorten reviews, override local opposition or add staff. None of those levers works on its own.

What does help is clearer.

Where projects are numerous, standardized and low risk, automation can deliver real gains. Residential solar permitting is a clear example: When compliance can be validated against uniform rules, digital review can shrink timelines from weeks to hours. Not every project can be automated — but repeatability matters.

For large infrastructure, speed comes from coordination and visibility.

Shared schedules, common document sets and public milestones don’t eliminate conflict, but they reduce drift. When agencies work from the same information and commit to aligned timelines, reviews are more likely to happen concurrently rather than sequentially. Surprises become less frequent and less damaging.

Equally important is what happens before formal review begins.

Projects that integrate environmental, land-use and community constraints early — while routes and designs are still flexible — tend to face fewer fatal challenges later. Early coordination doesn’t prevent opposition, but it surfaces it sooner, when adjustments are still possible.

Speed is rarely unlocked by compressing one step in isolation. Accelerating interconnection doesn’t help if local siting approvals lag by years. Shortening environmental reviews doesn’t matter if litigation risk remains unresolved. Adding staff without improving how information flows simply creates more parallel work, not better decisions.

Technology alone isn’t a cure-all. But better collaboration, clearer visibility and shared documentation can reduce the friction that makes disagreement more expensive than it needs to be — especially in public-sector infrastructure, where accountability and transparency matter as much as speed.

The real constraint on the AI economy

The strain showing up across the power grid isn’t a failure of technology or ambition. It’s a signal that the systems used to approve and deliver infrastructure are being asked to operate at a speed they were never designed to sustain.

AI didn’t create this problem. It revealed it.

Long before data centers rewrote load forecasts, the gap between infrastructure need and delivery was widening. AI compressed the timeline, forcing institutions built for gradual change to confront demand that moves in years instead of decades.

The lesson from PJM and similar regions isn’t that the grid can’t support growth, but that growth exposes every weakness in how projects are coordinated, reviewed and approved. When those processes fracture, even technically viable solutions stall. Capacity exists on paper. Reliability erodes in practice.

Fixing that disconnect doesn’t require abandoning environmental review or public oversight. It requires recognizing that speed and rigor aren’t opposites — and that early coordination, shared information and transparent workflows are now prerequisites for building anything at scale.

The future of the grid will depend less on how much power can be generated than on how effectively institutions can work together to deliver it. In an economy increasingly shaped by AI, that may be the most important infrastructure challenge of all.

Parth Tikiwala is a public sector and academic strategy leader driving digital transformation and innovation at Bluebeam by building partnerships across government, education and the AEC industry.

……

How Bluebeam Fits In

How does Bluebeam support faster permitting and infrastructure reviews?

Bluebeam helps teams manage the complexity that slows permitting: disconnected reviews, version confusion and late-stage surprises. By centralizing documents, markups and decision trails in a shared digital environment, Bluebeam makes it easier for agencies, utilities and project teams to review plans concurrently rather than sequentially.

Why does document coordination matter so much in permitting delays?

Many infrastructure projects stall not because of a single denial, but because information moves unevenly across stakeholders. Bluebeam provides a common source of truth for plans and comments, reducing rework and preventing issues from resurfacing late, when design flexibility and political capital are already limited.

How does Bluebeam help surface conflicts earlier in the process?

Early discovery is critical in high-stakes infrastructure projects. Bluebeam’s markup, overlay and comparison tools allow teams to identify routing conflicts, environmental constraints or scope changes while designs are still adaptable — before they trigger re-review cycles or litigation risk later in permitting.

Can Bluebeam support multi-agency and multi-jurisdiction reviews?

Yes. Large grid and transmission projects often involve federal, state and local reviewers working on different timelines. Bluebeam enables parallel review by allowing multiple stakeholders to comment on the same set of documents, track responses and maintain a clear record of how issues were resolved across jurisdictions.

Where does Bluebeam add the most value in grid and energy projects?

Bluebeam is most effective where complexity and coordination are the limiting factors — transmission lines, substations, generation facilities and data-center-adjacent infrastructure. In these environments, the ability to align reviewers, document decisions and maintain transparency can be as critical as engineering itself.

How does this connect to the broader AI-driven infrastructure challenge?

As AI accelerates demand, infrastructure timelines are being compressed without simplifying oversight. Bluebeam doesn’t replace permitting systems or policy decisions, but it helps institutions work together more effectively within them by reducing friction, improving visibility and making speed and rigor compatible rather than competing goals.

See how real teams cut review delays.

Start free trial
Burned residential structures and debris after a wildfire, showing cleared lots and stalled rebuilding in an urban neighborhood during post-fire recovery.

From Cleanup to Rebuild: Why Wildfire Recovery Needs a Project Mindset

  • Construction & The Economy, Project Management & Efficiency
How fragmented handoffs slow post-fire rebuilding—and what a project mindset reveals about moving recovery forward.

One year after the 2025 wildfires reshaped large swaths of Los Angeles, the physical signs of recovery remain uneven.

In some neighborhoods, rebuilding is well underway. In others, properties have been cleared but still sit idle, or remain caught in layers of review, testing and approval.

The contrast is visible across communities and jurisdictions, and it raises a familiar question for anyone in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry: Why does recovery slow so dramatically once the immediate emergency ends?

Reporting over the past year points to a range of contributing factors. Coverage from The Wall Street Journal details how insurance challenges, permitting delays and uneven access to capital shape who’s able to rebuild—and when.

The New York Times, meanwhile, has examined how fire behavior, infrastructure failures and post-fire conditions complicate recovery long after flames are extinguished.

Built, in the wake of the fires, explored these issues from the construction side, including the realities of hazardous debris cleanup and the long tail of rebuilding in fire-prone urban areas.

Together, these accounts point to a broader structural issue: Wildfire recovery is often treated as a series of necessary but disconnected actions—cleanup, environmental clearance, permitting, insurance review, rebuilding—rather than as a single, continuous effort.

Without a framework that connects those phases, progress depends less on how much work is being done and more on how effectively one stage hands off to the next.

Why recovery breaks down

Wildfire recovery, as the WSJ and NYT reporting shows, spans multiple, distinct phases, each governed by its own rules, timelines and stakeholders. Hazard mitigation and debris removal give way to environmental testing and clearance, followed by permitting, insurance alignment and reconstruction. Each phase is complex, regulated and essential. Each is also typically managed by different entities using different tools, records and standards.

On their own, these phases often function as intended. Cleanup crews focus on safety and environmental compliance. Regulators verify site conditions before allowing rebuilding to proceed. Insurers require documentation before releasing funds. Contractors wait for approvals before mobilizing.

The breakdown usually doesn’t occur within the work itself, but between phases.

When recovery is managed as a series of discrete tasks rather than as a unified program, handoffs become friction points. Information is recreated instead of transferred. Decisions are revisited because earlier context has been lost. Projects stall not because efforts stopped, but because each transition introduces uncertainty that didn’t need to exist.

For anyone who’s worked on large capital programs, this pattern is familiar. Without shared sequencing, ownership and documentation standards, even well-funded projects struggle to maintain momentum.

Wildfire recovery is no different. The conditions are more volatile and the stakes higher, but the coordination challenge is the same one the industry confronts on complex, multi-stakeholder projects every day.

The issue isn’t a lack of expertise or commitment, but the absence of a program-level approach that treats recovery as a continuous process rather than a collection of isolated actions.

Cleanup is phase one, not a prequel

In urban wildfires, cleanup is often framed as a preliminary step—necessary but separate from the “real” work of rebuilding. In practice, cleanup is the first major construction phase of recovery, and the decisions made during it shape everything that follows.

As Built wrote in March 2025, post-fire cleanup in dense, developed areas involves far more than debris removal. Crews must identify and manage hazardous materials, address contaminated soils and ash, conduct environmental testing, and document site conditions to meet regulatory and insurance requirements.

When those records are incomplete, inconsistent or siloed, the downstream effects are immediate. Environmental clearance slows. Permits stall. Insurance claims linger. In many recovery efforts that struggle to gain traction, cleanup is treated as temporary or transactional—handled quickly, documented loosely and then left behind once debris is cleared.

The result is a reset when rebuilding begins. New teams are forced to re-establish site conditions, reverify earlier work or recreate documentation that no longer exists in a usable form. Time’s lost not because work wasn’t done, but because the continuity of information was broken.

Recovery efforts that move more steadily take a different approach. Cleanup is treated as the first milestone in a longer sequence. Documentation produced during debris removal and environmental testing is designed to carry forward into permitting, insurance review and reconstruction planning. Cleanup outputs become formal inputs to the phases that follow, reducing rework and uncertainty.

For AEC professionals, this dynamic isn’t new. Early site investigations, enabling works and environmental assessments routinely shape scope, schedule and risk on large projects. Wildfire recovery follows the same logic.

When cleanup is treated as phase one of a multi-year effort rather than a standalone task, it becomes a foundation instead of a bottleneck.

What a project mindset looks like in practice

Treating recovery as a project doesn’t require reinventing how construction works. It requires applying principles the industry already relies on—phasing, sequencing, ownership and documentation continuity—to a context where they’re often missing or underdefined.

A project mindset starts with clearly defined phases and intentional handoffs. Each stage of recovery has a purpose, a responsible owner and a set of outputs that enable the next stage to proceed.

Cleanup establishes verified site conditions. Environmental clearance confirms readiness to rebuild. Permitting and insurance alignment provide scope and funding certainty. Reconstruction advances with fewer unknowns because earlier decisions were made deliberately rather than reactively.

Across recovery efforts examined by government auditors and infrastructure agencies worldwide, coordination often matters more than raw funding in determining how quickly this sequence moves.

Programs with significant financial resources still stall when approvals, standards and documentation are fragmented across agencies and timelines. Others progress more smoothly by aligning expectations and sequencing early, even under tight constraints.

Documentation is the connective tissue that makes that alignment possible. In long-duration recovery efforts, records aren’t administrative byproducts. They’re the infrastructure that allows work to continue as teams, contractors and public officials change over time.

When documentation persists across phases—tied to the site rather than to a single stakeholder—projects spend less time revisiting past decisions and more time moving forward.

None of this is foreign to the AEC industry. Large capital programs, campus expansions, transportation corridors and utility upgrades rely on the same fundamentals. They succeed because early phases are designed to support later ones, and because information’s structured to survive complexity.

Wildfire recovery becomes more predictable when it’s managed with the same discipline.

What AECO teams already know and can apply

For AEC professionals, the mechanics of recovery-as-a-project aren’t new. The industry routinely manages multi-year efforts that involve layered approvals, regulatory oversight and changing teams.

Wildfire recovery introduces additional pressures, but the underlying coordination challenge remains the same. When cleanup aligns with downstream needs, when documentation is designed to persist and when stakeholders work from a shared sequence, recovery efforts move with greater predictability.

Built’s coverage in February 2025 on rebuilding in Los Angeles underscores that technical capability isn’t the limiting factor.

The opportunity lies in applying existing project discipline more deliberately, and earlier, in the recovery process.

Looking ahead

As wildfires grow larger and recovery efforts stretch over longer periods, the line between disaster response and capital construction continues to blur. Recovery increasingly resembles a multi-year construction program, whether it’s managed that way or not.

The lesson from Los Angeles isn’t that recovery is uniquely difficult—but that recovery works best when it’s treated as a continuous effort, guided by the same discipline that governs complex projects across the built environment.

For the AEC industry, that perspective offers a practical path forward: By applying familiar project principles to an unfamiliar context, recovery can move with greater clarity, fewer resets and a stronger foundation for rebuilding what comes next.

Bring project clarity to complex recovery efforts.

Start trial
Hire360 leaders, contractors and partners gather outside the Chicago nonprofit’s training center, highlighting workforce development and support for small construction businesses.

This Chicago Nonprofit Isn’t Just Training Workers but Rebuilding the Construction Pipeline

  • Construction & The Economy, People & Project Spotlights
Hire360’s ecosystem approach connects labor, capital and opportunity where the industry usually fails.

Adrian Mobley did everything right—and still almost lost her business.

In 2014, she left a two-decade career as a respiratory therapist to launch a company providing CPR and OSHA safety training. The business grew. She joined a union. She won work on public construction projects. Eventually, she expanded into traffic control and construction services, creating jobs for people from neighborhoods like the one she grew up in on Chicago’s South Side.

But none of that solved a problem that quietly shuts down countless small contractors every year: cash flow.

Public contracts paid slowly. Payroll and union dues didn’t. Even with good credit, Mobley struggled to secure working capital—the kind of short-term financing that keeps crews paid and projects moving.

“If I hadn’t gotten help, I would have failed a long time ago,” Mobley said.

Her experience is common in an industry that depends on small and midsize contractors but often leaves them financially exposed. Mobley’s story might have ended badly if she hadn’t crossed paths with Hire360, a Chicago-based nonprofit working to tackle construction’s workforce and contractor challenges at the same time.

Building more than jobs

Hire360 was founded in January 2020 with a simple premise: workforce training alone doesn’t work if the contractors who hire those workers can’t survive.

The organization focuses on building what it calls a “circular ecosystem”—one that connects worker training, youth engagement, contractor growth and supply chain expansion into a single, reinforcing model.

“We’re recruiting for an industry,” said Jay Rowell, Hire360’s executive director. “If you’re not working with this industry and you’re not understanding their needs, you’re never going to help people get in.”

Since its launch, Hire360 has trained more than 600 workers through pre-apprenticeship programs while also supporting more than 230 local contractors with financing, mentorship and back-office assistance.

The goal isn’t just to place people in jobs, Rowell said, but to help them stay—and build careers.

“It’s great that you got into a union, you pass the test,” he said. “But the point is to get a career and to collect that pension check on the back end.”

Training that sticks

On the workforce side, Hire360 works closely with union leaders and construction firms to identify which trades are hiring and what skills workers need to succeed long term.

That collaboration shapes everything from certifications to hands-on training. The nonprofit also says it removes practical barriers that can derail new workers early, investing more than $1.4 million to cover tools, boots and protective equipment.

“We work with them to really tailor the training, the certifications, the other components to give our candidates the best chance of getting into whatever trade it is,” Rowell said.

Hire360 extends that approach to young people as well, partnering with local schools to expose students to careers they may never have seen firsthand. The organization hosts skilled trades fairs, field trips to its training center and paid summer internships, while working with school leaders to identify students interested in union apprenticeship programs tied to upcoming construction projects.

“A lot of kids that we work with have never been to a construction site, have never been to an apprenticeship program,” Rowell said. “They don’t even know what these careers look like. It’s hard to be something if you haven’t seen it.”

Keeping contractors alive—and growing

For small contractors, survival often hinges on access to capital. Hire360 addresses that gap directly, offering working capital loans and financial guidance to help firms manage payroll, purchase materials and take on larger jobs.

“Our loans are pivotal to helping smaller contracting firms scale up,” Rowell said. “Otherwise, they’re capped out by what they can charge on their credit card.”

That support proved critical for Mobley. Through Hire360, she was introduced to banking partners and coached on the documentation needed to secure a line of credit—starting at $10,000 and eventually growing to $250,000.

With that stability, her company—now called A&W Contractors—expanded into fencing and interior and exterior buildouts. Depending on the project, she employs between 25 and 50 people, including workers trained through Hire360’s programs.

The nonprofit also encourages contractors to grow beyond traditional scopes by entering construction material supply, an area where minority-owned businesses have historically faced steep barriers.

Hire360 helped launch the Midwest’s first Black-owned HVAC supplier with a $1 million loan and partnerships with major manufacturers. It’s now supporting other suppliers, from doors to flooring, as they scale their operations.

A model built on shared success

For Mobley, the impact went beyond financing. Hire360 connected her with accountants, provided mentorship and helped her navigate the realities of expansion in a notoriously unforgiving industry.

She credits the organization with strengthening not just her business, but the broader construction ecosystem in Chicago.

“Even though I know in my mind I can do all things, I still need help,” Mobley said. “I need the right guidance. I don’t have every answer.

“The people affiliated with Hire360—they’ve been in construction. They know the ins and outs of financing. They know distributors. They know a lot of what I don’t know, and they’re not shy about sharing the information.”

That willingness to address construction’s problems holistically—from training to financing to supply chains—is what sets Hire360 apart. It’s a recognition that workforce development doesn’t happen in isolation; that sustainable careers depend on sustainable businesses.

In an industry facing persistent labor shortages and contractor turnover, Hire360’s model suggests a different way forward—one that treats workers and contractors not as separate challenges, but as parts of the same system.

And for business owners like Mobley, that difference can mean everything.

…..

Bluebeam FAQ: Supporting Contractors and Workforce Stability

How can Bluebeam help small contractors manage cash flow on public projects?

Bluebeam helps contractors streamline takeoffs, estimating and change documentation so they can submit accurate bids, track scope changes and invoice with confidence. Clear documentation reduces disputes and delays—critical for contractors waiting on slow public-sector payments.

Can Bluebeam support contractors as they scale into larger or more complex projects?

Yes. As contractors grow, Bluebeam helps standardize workflows across teams, trades and job sizes. Shared markups, version control and real-time collaboration make it easier to manage multiple projects without adding administrative overhead.

How does Bluebeam help reduce back-office strain for small construction businesses?

By centralizing drawings, markups and project communication in one platform, Bluebeam reduces time spent searching for files or recreating work. That efficiency frees up small teams to focus on payroll, scheduling and project delivery instead of paperwork.

Is Bluebeam useful for contractors working with unions and multiple trade partners?

Bluebeam is designed for multi-stakeholder environments. Union contractors, subcontractors and project partners can review the same documents, track revisions and resolve issues early, supporting smoother coordination across the entire job site ecosystem.

How can digital collaboration tools help retain workers long term?

Clear plans, fewer errors and less rework create more predictable jobsites. When crews aren’t dealing with constant confusion or last-minute fixes, projects run more smoothly, helping workers stay employed, advance their skills and build sustainable careers.

Keep crews paid and projects moving, even on public jobs.

Start Free Trial
Reflecting pool and fire-resistant architecture at the Getty Center in Los Angeles, showcasing landscape design and campus planning that helped protect the site during historic wildfires.

When Wildfire Put the Getty to the Test

  • Building, Design & Architecture, Health, Safety, and Compliance
How fire-resistant design and year-round planning helped protect two iconic campuses.

As wildfires advanced through neighborhoods across Los Angeles in January 2025, the threat wasn’t abstract. Flames moved through dry, hilly terrain where buildings, infrastructure and cultural institutions sit alongside dense vegetation.

Among the most closely watched sites were the two campuses of the J. Paul Getty Museum, both in fire-prone areas and surrounded by brush and open land.

Images circulating in the media showed fires beginning to burn in gardens at both Getty locations. For a city already on edge, the question was unavoidable: Could even a site long regarded as a model of fire-safe architecture withstand one of the most destructive fire events in Los Angeles history?

The fire that reached the Getty campuses unfolded during a year of compounding climate extremes across Southern California. In 2025, the region endured the devastating January wildfires, followed months later by intense storms that caused flooding, mudslides and widespread damage—often in the same communities.

As The New York Times reported, those back-to-back disasters underscored how extreme weather is no longer episodic in Southern California, but increasingly overlapping, reshaping how cities plan for risk and recovery.

Survival Wasn’t an Accident

The answer, ultimately, was yes. Both the Getty Center and the Getty Villa survived the fire. Their survival reflected careful planning, longstanding design decisions and the work of Getty staff who prepared for the event as it unfolded.

To understand how that preparation translated into real-world performance, Built spoke with Michael Rogers, director of facilities at the J. Paul Getty Trust, about the institution’s approach to fire safety and how it held up under real conditions.

Designing the Getty Center with Fire in Mind

“The Getty Center and the Getty Villa are both very different,” Rogers said. “The Getty Center is a very, very large building. It’s over a million square feet. It’s in West L.A., and it’s on about 750 acres of land. A lot of that is rural, wild brush, oak trees.”

From the earliest planning stages, the Getty Center’s setting made fire risk impossible to ignore. The campus sits within a landscape that’s both scenic and combustible, and its designers treated that reality as a core constraint rather than a secondary concern.

“When the Getty Center was designed and built, fire prevention was one of the really important things they were thinking about,” Rogers said. “There’s fire prevention within the building to protect the collections. It’s a highly fire-resistant building with a lot of compartmentalization that helps keep a fire from spreading if one starts inside. It also has fire sprinklers and sophisticated monitoring systems. It’s considered a Type 1 building, the most fire-resistant construction generally used.”

That emphasis went beyond baseline code requirements. The building incorporates highly rated assemblies and extensive fire separations designed to slow or stop the spread of fire under extreme conditions.

“Some of them are as extreme as four-hour separation,” Rogers said. “Most buildings have one- or two-hour. But if you want a highly fire-resistant building, you have to think about it in every decision you’re making. For example, we felt it was important to use stone on the building and crushed stone on roof systems to help control embers. They look beautiful, but they also have fire-resistant qualities.”

The Getty Villa: Retrofitting Resilience into a Historic Site

The Getty Villa presents a different challenge. Built in 1955 as a gallery extension of J. Paul Getty’s home in the Pacific Palisades, it predates many modern fire safety standards. While its reinforced concrete walls and tile roof offer inherent protection, its age and historic character limit how visibly safety upgrades can be applied.

“The Getty Villa is a site that has multiple buildings,” Rogers said. “It has the Ranch House, the museum. And when we did a large remodel in the 2000s, we added even more systems. We improved the fire system, fire separation and fire resistance in all the new construction and modified much of the older building, so it was upgraded even further.”

Those upgrades allowed the Villa to incorporate modern fire-resistance strategies while preserving its architectural character, a balance that remains central to daily operations.

Systems That Protect Without Being Seen

Across both campuses, much of the Getty’s fire protection infrastructure is intentionally unobtrusive. Fire separations and fire-rated doors divide buildings into compartments that limit fire spread while remaining largely invisible to visitors.

At the Villa, additional measures protect against smoke and ash intrusion. A carbon-filtered air-conditioning system maintains controlled pressure and can be adjusted as conditions change. Fire sprinklers are installed throughout the site but kept dry to prevent accidental water damage, activated only as a last resort.

“You want to make sure the presentation of the building stays similar,” Rogers said. “Most of these fire-resistant components and systems, nobody ever sees.”

Landscaping as a Fire-Safety Strategy

Fire resilience at the Getty doesn’t stop at the building envelope. Landscaping and site management play a critical role in slowing fire movement and reducing intensity.

Regular brush clearance is part of routine maintenance, supported by irrigation systems that help keep grounds moist. Plant selection prioritizes species that absorb water effectively and burn more slowly than typical vegetation. At the Villa, the site also maintains 50,000 gallons of backup water storage for emergency use.

Climate scientists told The New York Times that the severity of recent fires was driven in part by a volatile cycle of growth and drought. Unusually wet conditions between 2022 and early 2024 fueled vegetation growth across the region, followed by near-record low precipitation that dried out grasses and shrubs, priming landscapes to burn.

That pattern—wet years followed by intense drought—is becoming more pronounced as warmer air pulls moisture from the land, increasing wildfire risk even in areas that appear green and well maintained.

The surrounding landscape was treated as an extension of the fire-safety system, one that can either accelerate or inhibit fire behavior depending on how it’s managed.

Preparing for the Worst, Every Year

Underlying all these measures is a culture of continuous preparedness. Fire mitigation at the Getty isn’t seasonal or reactive; it’s embedded in year-round operations.

“When something like a red flag alert happens in Los Angeles, we start planning immediately,” Rogers said. “We prepare our resources and position people to make sure we can operate the buildings and do everything needed to protect them.”

That preparation includes ongoing collaboration with local agencies and first responders.

“We do a lot of planning with the government and the community each year,” Rogers said. “We work with the Los Angeles Fire Department on fire modeling and different response methodologies. It depends on what’s actually happening.”

When Preparation Meets Reality

During the fire, those systems and strategies were put to the test. Flames moved through vegetation on the Villa’s grounds, but the buildings themselves weren’t damaged.

“We focus on low ground cover and reducing vegetation so fire can’t move as fast or be as ferocious,” Rogers said. “That’s what we experienced at the Getty Villa. The fire reached trees and vegetation, but it didn’t damage the buildings.”

The risks don’t end when flames are extinguished. In mountain communities like Wrightwood, The New York Times reported that rain falling on recent burn scars pushed mud and debris into homes, roads and bridges, illustrating how wildfires can create cascading hazards long after an event.

What’s more, flooding after fires has become an increasingly common threat across Southern California, reinforcing the need for year-round planning that considers not just fire behavior, but what follows.

The outcome reflects a simple but powerful principle: Preparation works when it’s comprehensive, maintained and exercised long before an emergency occurs.

AEC Takeaway: What the Getty’s Experience Gets Right

The Getty’s survival wasn’t about a single system or material. It was the result of coordination across design, construction and operations—long before the fire arrived. For AEC teams, a few lessons stand out:

  • Design for extremes, not averages. Fire-resistant assemblies, compartmentalization and material choices should assume worst-case conditions, not code minimums.
  • Treat the site as part of the system. Landscaping, drainage and vegetation management play as much of a role in resilience as the building envelope.
  • Plan beyond the build. Year-round preparedness, clear documentation and coordination with local agencies matter just as much as initial design decisions.
  • Expect cascading risks. Fire can be followed by flooding, erosion or access issues. Resilient planning considers what comes next, not just the immediate threat.

As wildfire risk expands and climate volatility increases, resilience is becoming less about reacting to events and more about embedding foresight into every phase of a project.

Lessons Beyond the Getty

For Rogers, the experience underscores the broader relevance of fire-resistant design and planning, especially as wildfire risk expands beyond traditionally vulnerable areas.

“I think this is an opportunity to think about fire-resistant construction in housing,” he said. “It can be very helpful.”

As climate conditions continue to change, the Getty’s experience offers a clear lesson for institutions, designers and communities alike: Resilience isn’t a single feature or system. It’s the result of sustained decisions made over time, often long before the fire is visible on the horizon.

Bluebeam FAQ: Applying These Lessons on Real Projects

How can Bluebeam help teams plan for fire resilience during design?

Bluebeam allows project teams to review drawings collaboratively, identify fire-rated assemblies and verify compartmentalization strategies early. Architects, engineers and reviewers can flag materials, separations and life-safety elements directly on PDFs, helping fire-resistance considerations stay visible throughout design development.

Can Bluebeam support coordination between facilities teams and first responders?

Yes. Bluebeam makes it easier to share up-to-date site plans, access routes and emergency documentation with stakeholders. During preplanning, teams can maintain a single, trusted set of drawings that supports coordination with fire departments, inspectors and emergency planners.

How does Bluebeam help manage complex, multi-building sites like campuses?

For large or distributed sites, Bluebeam helps organize drawings by building, system or phase, while maintaining consistency across the set. This is especially useful when managing fire separations, egress paths and infrastructure that span multiple structures or landscapes.

Is Bluebeam useful after a wildfire or disaster event?

After an event, Bluebeam can be used to document damage, track inspections and coordinate repairs. Teams can mark up post-event assessments, compare conditions against original drawings and maintain clear records as projects move from recovery into rebuilding.

Which teams typically use Bluebeam for resilience planning?

Bluebeam is commonly used by architects, engineers, contractors, owners and facilities managers. Its value increases when resilience planning spans design, construction and long-term operations—exactly the kind of cross-disciplinary coordination seen in the Getty’s approach.

Plan for resilience before disaster strikes.

Start trial
Construction workers silhouetted on a large commercial jobsite at dusk, illustrating the 2026 construction labor shortage and the efficiency mandate facing megaprojects and skilled trades.

The Efficiency Mandate: Why 2026 Is the Year Construction Runs Out of People

  • Construction & The Economy, Project Management & Efficiency
As megaprojects surge and the workforce thins, builders will have to create capacity through efficiency, not headcount.

Capital isn’t the problem. Projects aren’t the problem.

The problem is bodies.

Over the next decade, the U.S. will need roughly 650,000-725,000 construction and extraction workers every year just to fill open roles and replace people retiring or leaving the industry.

That’s not to grow capacity. That’s just to keep the lights on.

At the same time, demand is tilting toward the most labor-hungry, skill-intensive projects the industry has ever seen:

  • AI-driven data centers.
  • Grid and transmission buildouts.
  • Clean-energy and storage projects.
  • Semiconductor fabs and advanced manufacturing.
  • Plus, the unfinished business of housing and traditional infrastructure.

In 2026, those curves intersect: an aging workforce, a smaller pipeline of young workers and a wall of megaprojects all competing for the same electricians, linemen, pipefitters and supers.

There’s no plausible hiring plan that closes that gap.

That’s why 2026 isn’t just going to be “another busy year.” It’s the start of what you could call the efficiency mandate: If each worker isn’t effectively doing the work of 1.2-1.5 traditional workers — without burning out — projects will slip, get de-scoped or never break ground.

This is what that means in practice.

Why is the labor problem structural, not just “a hot cycle”?

This isn’t just another tight market that will ease after a rate cycle. Structural forces — demographics, replacement needs, immigration dependence and a thin pipeline of young workers — mean the industry is running out of experienced people faster than it can bring new ones in. That imbalance defines the next decade.

Is this different from every other “skilled labor shortage” headline you’ve seen for 30 years?

Yes. For a few reasons.

Replacement demand dwarfs new job growth

U.S. construction employment today sits around 8.3 million workers, including roughly 3.4 million in residential. The raw growth story doesn’t look explosive; the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects only single-digit percentage job growth over the next decade.

But that’s not the real issue.

The real issue is replacement demand:

  • The BLS expects about 650,000 openings per year in construction and extraction roles through the mid-2030s, mostly to replace people retiring or leaving the occupation.
  • NAHB/HBI’s labor market analysis pegs it even higher: around 723,000 construction occupational openings per year right now, implying more than 2.1 million hires needed just in 2024-26.
  • ABC’s modeling says the industry needed about 500,000 additional workers in 2024, and a similar order of magnitude in 2025-26, on top of those replacement needs.

The math is simple and ugly: Replacing today’s workforce is a much bigger job than adding new positions.

“Openings are down” is not the good news it sounds like

If you look at job openings data, you’ll see a story that, at first glance, looks like relief. Open construction job postings have fallen from roughly 375,000 in mid-2024 to about 245,000 in mid-2025. That’s a big drop. It’s also misleading.

At the same time:

  • Overall construction employment remains near record highs.
  • The unemployment rate in construction is hovering near historic lows.
  • National contractor surveys still show 70-80% of firms struggling to fill hourly craft roles, especially in mechanical, electrical and civil trades.

In other words, we’re close to full employment for skilled craft labor. Openings are dropping not because there’s suddenly plenty of talent, but because many contractors are posting fewer jobs they know they can’t fill and stretching the people they have.

Demographics are destiny

The age profile is even more telling:

These aren’t interchangeable heads, either. The workers retiring are often your most experienced supers, foremen and specialist trades. When they walk off the job for the last time, you don’t just lose a pair of hands; you lose institutional memory and productivity that took decades to build.

Immigration is the quiet keystone

On top of that, construction is highly dependent on immigrant labor:

  • Immigrants make up roughly 25-30% of construction workers nationally.
  • In key trades — roofers, drywallers, laborers, carpenters — immigrants account for a third to more than half of the workforce in many markets.
  • In states like California and Texas and fast-growing metros, those shares are even higher.

Any tightening or uncertainty in immigration policy isn’t an abstract political debate for this industry but directly caps the maximum achievable headcount, especially in the trades that already feel tightest.

Put all that together and you get a simple conclusion: This isn’t just a hot cycle where “we’ll hire once rates fall.” The constraint is structural and baked into demographics and policy for the next decade.

How are four megacycles colliding over one shared talent pool?

Over the next several years, multiple policy- and technology-driven buildouts hit at once: data centers, grid upgrades, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. Each needs overlapping trades in overlapping regions. Instead of balanced cycles, contractors face stacked megacycles that all pull from the same shallow talent pool at the same time.

If the labor side of the equation weren’t bad enough, look at what’s arriving on the demand side.

1. Data centers and AI’s power appetite

You don’t need to be in the tech world to feel the ripple effects of AI. Data centers already used about 176 TWh of electricity in 2023, roughly 4.4% of total U.S. power demand. Updated federal and independent studies now project that number could reach 325-580 TWh by 2028, or 6.7-12% of total U.S. demand.

Private-sector forecasts like Goldman Sachs are even more aggressive, projecting data centers could hit about 8% of U.S. power demand by 2030 and require tens of gigawatts of new generation capacity.

All of that must be designed, permitted and built:

  • Hyperscale and colocation campuses
  • Substations, high-voltage lines and interconnections
  • Cooling infrastructure and high-density MEP systems
  • Supporting roads, water and utilities

These are complex, coordination-heavy projects with intense demands on mechanical, electrical and civil trades.

2. Grid modernization and transmission

At the same time, the grid those data centers rely on is being rebuilt in real time. The U.S. Department of Energy’s transmission needs analysis concludes that to meet reliability and clean-energy goals, the country must effectively double regional transmission capacity and increase interregional transfer capacity fivefold by 2035.

That translates into:

  • Tens of thousands of new line miles over the next decade
  • Hundreds of billions of dollars in capital expenditures
  • Thousands of substations, towers, foundations and associated civil work

Federal programs are already moving money: multibillion-dollar grid resilience grants, transmission facilitation loans and direct federal support for marquee lines. Those aren’t hypothetical white papers; they’re construction pipelines.

3. Clean energy and storage

Then layer in the clean energy buildout: utility-scale solar, onshore and offshore wind, storage, hydrogen hubs and more.

Analysts tracking the Inflation Reduction Act estimate:

  • Hundreds of new clean energy projects announced in its first couple of years.
  • Hundreds of thousands of construction job years generated during buildout alone.

Again, these need line workers, civil crews, steelworkers, electricians and commissioning specialists — the same people AI data centers and the grid are trying to hire.

4. Semiconductors and advanced manufacturing

Finally, there’s the semiconductor wave. CHIPS-backed fabs in Arizona, New York, Texas and Ohio are already confronting labor shortages severe enough to delay timelines. We’ve seen:

  • High-profile fabs pushing production dates out by several years.
  • Public commentary from project sponsors citing a lack of skilled construction workers, especially for high-purity process piping, power distribution and controls.

Fab projects, like data centers, demand the best of the best: highly experienced mechanical, electrical and process trades, plus tight QA/QC and commissioning.

Now put all four together: data centers, grid, clean energy, fabs — plus ongoing housing and infrastructure backlogs. They all want the same people, in the same timeframe, often in the same regions.

That’s the 2026-30 collision.

Why doesn’t “just pay more” solve the labor crunch?

Raising wages helps but can’t overcome time, geography and policy. Apprenticeships still take years, workers can’t instantly relocate to every hot market and immigration rules sit outside contractors’ control. Compensation becomes table stakes, not a silver bullet, in a market where the total pool of skilled labor is capped.

In a textbook market, high demand and short supply should mean one thing: Pay more. Problem solved. Reality isn’t that simple.

Yes, wages have moved:

And yet the shortages persist, for reasons that aren’t fixable with a line item in a budget:

  • Training takes time: You don’t turn a new hire into a journeyman electrician in 18 months, no matter what you pay.
  • Work is geographically sticky: Projects don’t neatly line up where the workers are. Convincing specialized trades to move across the country at scale is slow and expensive.
  • Immigration policy is out of contractors’ control: The industry can’t unilaterally expand the pool of eligible workers.

There are also early signs of cooling in a few regions — more applicants here, fewer job openings there — but that’s cyclical noise on top of a structural trend. If your plan is simply “we’ll pay up when things get tight,” you’re already behind.

How are rework and bad data draining hidden capacity?

Even before the crunch peaks, many projects effectively operate with smaller crews than they think. Time lost to rework, poor information flow and mismatched documents quietly burns a double-digit share of available hours. In a world where new people are scarce, recovering that wasted capacity becomes existential.

Even with today’s workforce, the industry is leaving a massive amount of capacity on the table.

Productivity has flatlined

Global construction productivity has grown at about 1% per year over the past two decades — roughly one-third the rate of manufacturing and well below the broader economy. In many advanced economies, including the U.S., construction labor productivity has stagnated or declined since 2000.

That would be annoying in a balanced market. In a market with structural labor tightness, it’s lethal.

Rework is a phantom workforce

Look at rework and bad data:

Translate that into people: If an average project team is losing 10-20% of its time to rework, hunting for documents or fixing coordination errors, that’s the equivalent of phantom crews you’re paying for but not actually getting. In a world where you can’t conjure up an extra 10% headcount, the only rational move is to stop wasting the 10% you already have.

What does the efficiency mandate look like in practice?

The efficiency mandate is less about heroic overtime and more about redesigning how work flows. Firms that standardize, digitize and industrialize — through BIM, coordination, prefab and lean planning — unlock more value from every hour on site. Those choices determine who can still deliver complex work when the talent pool tightens.

“Be more efficient” is meaningless. The question is: How? The data and the leading case studies point to a clear answer: standardized, digital, industrialized workflows that unlock more output per worker without asking people to simply sprint harder.

BIM and model-based coordination

When BIM is used consistently — not as a one-off experiment — contractors report:

  • Dramatic reductions in clashes and RFIs
  • Fewer constructability problems in the field
  • Lower defect rates at handover
  • More predictable schedules

That is pure capacity. Less time fixing what shouldn’t have been built in the first place means more time building what matters.

Prefabrication and modular

Industrialized construction isn’t theoretical anymore. On the right types of projects, the numbers are well established:

  • 20-50% faster delivery for suitable projects.
  • Up to 20% cost reductions in some modular case studies.
  • Hospital projects that moved more than 150,000 work hours off site, cut more than two months from the schedule and still reduced overall cost once you count rework and safety benefits.
  • Data center and health care jobs where 70% of complex piping or MEP assemblies were prefabricated, shrinking onsite headcount and congestion.

Again: That’s what making each worker “count for more” looks like in the real world.

Lean/IPD and digital planning

Lean construction and integrated project delivery aren’t just management buzzwords. In projects where they’re taken seriously, documented results include:

  • Schedules 30% faster than traditional delivery
  • Double-digit reductions in total labor hours
  • Lower peak onsite crew counts
  • Higher safety performance

When pull planning and Last Planner systems move from sticky notes on a trailer wall to digital environments tied to actual model and schedule data, those gains become repeatable instead of a one-off success story.

Put it all together and you get the heart of the efficiency mandate: Firms that combine BIM, prefab, lean/IPD and structured data can realistically get 1.2-1.5 times the effective output per worker on complex projects. In a structurally tight labor market, that isn’t a nice differentiator. It’s survival.

How should construction really think about automation and AI?

Robotics and AI are best understood as amplifiers sitting on top of strong digital foundations, not magical replacements for crews. Where data is clean and scopes are repetitive, they can meaningfully shift labor curves. Where workflows are messy, they mostly expose underlying problems instead of solving them.

Then there’s the current obsession: robotics and AI. They matter. But not in the way the marketing suggests.

Where robotics is paying off

Real projects — not glossy concept videos — show robotics moving the needle in specific scopes:

The pattern: Robots do well on repetitive, physically demanding tasks where there’s a strong digital model and clear tolerances.

Where the hype runs into the wall

You don’t hear as much about the pilots that stall out. But they’re common:

Survey data is telling: Optimism about construction robotics is high, but actual adoption has dipped in some studies, as contractors pull back to a smaller number of well-chosen use cases instead of chasing every new demo.

AI as a force multiplier for knowledge work

AI is already proving its worth in less glamorous but more fundamental ways:

  • Progress tracking: comparing 3D scans to BIM to automatically flag deviations, delays and billing issues — something that would otherwise soak up scarce VDC staff.
  • Predictive scheduling: using historical performance, weather and resource data to surface likely schedule risks weeks before a human would see them.
  • Estimating and document search: reducing the time preconstruction and field teams spend digging through drawings, RFIs and emails to figure out what’s current and what’s not.
  • Safety and quality monitoring: computer vision systems that spot PPE noncompliance or installation defects at scale.

The common denominator is obvious: None of this works without clean, standardized, current project data. AI doesn’t rescue bad workflows; it amplifies whatever you feed it.

How are leading builders already closing the efficiency gap?

Large builders are already operating on a blunt assumption: they can’t simply hire their way through the next decade.

Instead, they’re quietly redesigning how work gets delivered. That means shifting hours offsite, tightening coordination through BIM, standardizing data environments and focusing automation on a small number of high leverage use cases that move schedules and margins. Their project results offer a preview of what’s becoming the new baseline.

If all this still sounds theoretical, look at what’s happening on the industry’s most complex work:

  • On large, multi-building data center campuses and similarly fast-moving programs, leading builders are increasingly leaning on scan-versus-BIM comparison and AI-assisted deviation detection to maintain quality and schedule when internal VDC capacity can’t keep pace with field progress.
  • Automated reality capture handles monotonous documentation, allowing superintendents and project engineers to focus on coordination and problem-solving instead of clerical work. In preconstruction, AI-assisted estimating and standardized data environments are reducing friction and compressing timelines before crews ever mobilize.

The motivation isn’t trend-chasing but structural. These firms can’t simply triple their VDC staff or double their superintendent bench.

The same logic shows up in how industrialized construction is being applied across data centers, health care and hospitality.

Multi-trade prefabrication is shaving weeks off schedules. Hundreds of thousands of labor hours are being shifted offsite, reducing peak headcount, congestion and safety exposure. Volumetric modular systems are delivering finished components faster and with far less onsite disruption.

Again, the through-line is clear: when you can’t find more labor, you change where and how the work happens.

On major infrastructure and complex building projects, builders are also combining lean delivery models, BIM and digital twins to tighten feedback loops between design and construction. By continuously comparing as-built conditions to design intent using drones, sensors and model-based workflows, teams are reducing rework, improving material efficiency and compressing project durations without adding headcount.

Why isn’t this pure doom — and what’s still different this time?

Short-term signals can be confusing — local slowdowns, softer openings data, mixed technology results — but they sit on top of deeper trends that don’t reverse quickly. Leaders must read both layers at once: acknowledge regional cooling where it exists without mistaking it for a return to the old, labor-abundant normal.

To be fair, there are countersignals:

All true.

But those nuances don’t change the underlying structural picture:

You might get temporary pockets of relief. You won’t get a return to the world where you could always solve problems by “adding a few more workers.”

What hard choices does 2026 force construction leaders to make?

As projects and people diverge, 2026 becomes a forcing function. Owners, general contractors and trades all must decide whether they will privilege partners and practices that create capacity — through digital coordination, prefab and smarter planning — or hope the market loosens. Those choices shape who can even bid certain work.

In 2026, the stories you tell yourself about staffing will collide with reality. Practically, that means a few hard choices.

If you’re an owner or developer

You can’t just pick the lowest bidder and assume they’ll “figure it out.” You need to ask:

  • How standardized and digital are their workflows?
  • How do they handle coordination, rework and data?
  • Can they realistically staff this project in this market, or are they gambling?

Soft factors like BIM maturity and prefab capability are now directly tied to your schedule and risk profile.

If you’re a GC or EPC

You must decide whether you’re going to be a capacity creator or a capacity victim. That means:

  • Treating BIM, structured data and digital collaboration as core operations, not side projects.
  • Identifying where prefab and modular can be standard practice, not an exception.
  • Choosing a small number of automation and AI use cases tied to real bottlenecks — progress tracking, scheduling, layout, documentation — and doing the change management to scale them.
  • Investing in training so your people can operate confidently in this environment.

The firms that do this will bid — and deliver — projects their competitors literally can’t staff.

If you’re a trade contractor

Your choice is stark:

  • Become the partner who can integrate with model-based workflows, prefab assemblies and digital QA/QC, or
  • Become the shop that only makes sense on smaller, less time-sensitive work.

There’s a lot of business in both lanes. But you can’t pretend they’re the same.

Where does Bluebeam fit in the efficiency mandate?

Bluebeam doesn’t manufacture robots or design fabs; it quietly shapes how information moves. When drawings, markups and reviews live in a single, structured environment, teams waste less time chasing clarity and fixing preventable errors. That document layer is often the fastest, least disruptive way to unlock real capacity.

None of this is about a single tool solving a structural problem. The firms winning the efficiency game are doing it with systems: people, process, data and technology working together.

But if you strip away the buzzwords, a few foundational needs show up repeatedly:

  • Teams need clean, current documents everyone trusts.
  • They need standardized markups, layer conventions and workflows so data can be reused — not recreated — across scopes and phases.
  • They need fast, transparent review cycles that don’t leave junior staff guessing which version is “real.”
  • They need digital guardrails that help a less experienced engineer, coordinator or foreman perform closer to how a veteran would.

That’s where a platform like Bluebeam sits: not as the robot or the AI “brain,” but as the collaboration and data-quality layer that makes those bigger moves possible.

If rework and bad data are burning the equivalent of whole crews off your projects, then tightening up how drawings are shared, reviewed, marked up and standardized is one of the fastest ways to create capacity without hiring a single extra person.

What’s the bottom line for construction in 2026 and beyond?

The industry isn’t running out of projects or capital; it’s running out of time and people. Firms that treat efficiency as a strategic mandate — re-engineering how they coordinate, document and deliver work — will still have room to grow. Everyone else will find that the real constraint is no longer negotiable.

In 2026, the industry’s binding constraint isn’t going to be money. It isn’t going to be projects.

It’s going to be people.

You won’t hire your way through a decade where:

  • A third or more of your workforce retires.
  • Immigration inflows are uncertain.
  • Data centers, the grid, clean energy and fabs are all demanding the same scarce trades you need.

The only lever left with enough throw is efficiency — real, structural efficiency, not just working longer hours. The companies that treat 2026-30 as an efficiency mandate — and industrialize how they plan, coordinate and build — will get to say yes to the best projects and deliver them.

Everyone else will be stuck bidding work they can’t reliably staff.

Create capacity without adding headcount.

Start free trial
Aerial view of an active construction site with tower cranes and multi-building development, illustrating rising AEC technology investment amid ongoing workflow integration challenges.

AEC Technology Outlook 2026: Industry Investment Climbs, but Integration Challenges Persist

  • Construction & The Economy, Technology & Innovation
New Bluebeam research reveals firms accelerating digital adoption while struggling to fully connect their tools.

Digital adoption in the construction industry is accelerating, but progress remains uneven. According to the Bluebeam AEC Technology Outlook 2026, most architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) firms are investing in new tools, yet many continue to wrestle with disconnected systems, inconsistent workflows and persistent pockets of paper-based processes. Below is a closer look at the report’s core findings.

What does the 2026 outlook reveal about AEC firms’ technology investment?

The 2026 outlook shows a sector eager to modernize but still far from fully digital. Firms are accelerating investment, yet many continue to rely on hybrid workflows that mix paper and digital tools — a disconnect that limits efficiency and prevents truly connected project delivery.

Most firms remain committed to modernization, according to Bluebeam research. Eighty-four percent plan to increase their technology investment this year, and 67% say digital tools are improving productivity. Still, only 11% of respondents consider their organization “fully digital” across all project phases. Hybrid workflows persist, especially during design reviews and project handoff, where printed documents remain part of everyday practice.

This widening gap between adoption and integration underscores a familiar theme: tools are being purchased, but they aren’t yet delivering seamless, end-to-end project continuity.

Why has integration complexity overtaken cost as the industry’s top barrier?

The shift toward integration as the top barrier signals a maturing digital landscape. Firms have the tools they need, but those tools rarely communicate. As workflows expand across platforms, interoperability — not procurement — has become the limiting factor in achieving reliable, connected project data.

Twenty-three percent of respondents cited integration as their primary barrier. Disconnected platforms lead to duplicated work, isolated data and reduced confidence in project information. And while firms are adopting more tools, many still function as standalone solutions.

The report notes a turning point: success now hinges on system-to-system connectivity rather than software acquisition.

How is technology influencing AEC workforce attraction and retention?

Technology is becoming a defining factor in how AEC firms compete for talent. As younger workers expect modern tools and streamlined processes, organizations are reevaluating how digital capabilities shape employee experience. Yet limited training investment remains a major obstacle, widening the gap between expectations and on-the-job readiness.

Digital tools are increasingly tied to workforce strategy. Forty-four percent of firms now view technology as a contributing factor in winning and keeping employees — a shift driven by younger workers’ expectations for modern tools and efficient workflows.

Yet training remains limited. Sixty-five percent dedicate less than 10% of their technology budgets to upskilling, even as 19% cite a lack of skilled digital talent as a barrier. The report suggests usability and training will emerge as critical differentiators in a tightening labor market.

What impact is AI delivering, and why is broader adoption still slow?

AI is beginning to prove its value in practical construction workflows, delivering measurable efficiencies for early adopters. Yet concerns around trust, data governance and integration keep adoption cautious. Firms are looking for AI that fits naturally into existing processes rather than experimental tools that introduce risk or complexity.

Early adopters report meaningful benefits:

AI Impact Snapshot

Metric ReportedResult
AI usage among firms27%
Firms reporting ≥$50k savings68%
Firms saving 500–1,000 hours46%
Common concernsCompliance, data ownership, responsible use

Despite the ROI, adoption remains measured. The report concludes that firms prefer transparent, integrated AI focused on tangible outcomes — not experimental features or opaque automation.

What separates the firms making the most progress in 2026?

Leading firms succeed by treating digital transformation as a connectivity challenge, not a software acquisition race. They focus on unifying workflows, improving usability and building teams that can fully leverage the tools they already own. This shift enables more consistent data flow and stronger project outcomes.

These organizations are finding momentum in connected ecosystems — not in the breadth of their software stack but in how well tools work together. As interoperability improves, teams gain more reliable data, fewer manual steps and greater confidence across project phases.

Download the Full Report

The AEC Technology Outlook 2026 includes:

  • Regional digital maturity data
  • Benchmarks for AI, integration and training
  • Insights from more than 1,000 AEC professionals
  • Recommendations for improving workflow connectivity

Download The Report
Split-screen illustration showing outdated, paper-based 1990s construction supply chain workflows on the left and a modern AI-powered, digitally connected construction site on the right. The left side features a worker reviewing paper plans from 1999 amid stacked materials, while the right side shows automated, networked construction logistics with digital nodes and organized shipping containers—symbolizing how AI is modernizing construction supply chains.

Why Construction’s Supply Chains Still Run Like It’s 1999 — and How AI Might Finally Fix It

  • Project Management & Efficiency, Technology & Innovation
Manual processes are still draining time and money from projects, and AI may finally give teams the edge they need.

Across construction, one complaint echoes from project to project: the workload is climbing while the workforce is shrinking.

The labor shortage already stretches teams thin — and supply chain chaos piles on more pressure. A May 2025 industry poll found that 71% of respondents cited material availability and supply chain issues as the leading cause of construction project delays. No wonder owners and project managers scramble daily to keep things moving.

Something has to give. And for some, that means turning to agentic AI — not to replace people, but to relieve pressure on human teams and squeeze more value out of the resources they have.

That’s where Ojonimi Bako and Nick Selz come in.

From Walmart and Google to Construction

Bako, a mechanical engineer, spent years refining Walmart’s e-commerce strategy and operations before starting his own construction business. That’s when he ran headfirst into the industry’s messy supply chain reality.

His idea: merge his expertise in retail logistics with Selz’s background in systems design at Google. Together, they built Kaya AI, a platform aimed at fixing construction’s most painful bottleneck.

“Between our tech and construction backgrounds, we saw a massive problem in the construction supply chain space,” Selz said. “So many processes are manual, time-consuming and prone to human error. Meaningful insights that could have a measurable impact on projects often go unnoticed.”

AI That Thinks Like a Project Team Member

Kaya AI is designed to facilitate better collaboration and communication between stakeholders — general contractors, project managers and executives alike.

“The thing I love and find so interesting about the supply chain is it’s an incredibly collaborative workstream,” Selz said. “The different stakeholders on projects are actually on the same team.”

The stakes are real: if a generator lands on site four weeks early, nobody benefits. “Better collaboration and coordination are in everyone’s best interest.”

Here’s how it works:

  • Kaya AI digests construction data: drawings, specs and equipment lists.
  • It cross-checks for missing items and connects equipment lists to scheduling and submittals.
  • The result: a holistic view of what needs to be onsite, when and with which approvals.

And instead of asking crews to learn yet another system, Kaya uses autonomous AI agents that communicate by text, phone or email. To suppliers and contractors, it looks like the usual lead-time confirmation requests, but behind the scenes, AI is handling the heavy lifting.

Meet Jarvis, the AI Assistant

One example is Jarvis, Kaya AI’s project management agent.

“Jarvis helps customers identify schedule risk sooner,” Selz said. Project managers often miss the dependencies between fabrication, shipping and the submittal approval process. Jarvis surfaces those risks in real time.

“For example, when the lead time changes, Jarvis gathers that data and alerts you via text with a new submittal approval date.”

While the platform includes a web-based app and dashboards, Selz says most stakeholders still interact through everyday channels.

“It works with the communication channels they’re already using, meaning they don’t have to learn a new system or download another app.”

Kaya also integrates directly with scheduling and submittal software, cutting down on re-entry and manual work. Users can even generate calls, emails and texts to release project data or validate lead times. “That is saving folks a tremendous amount of manual work.”

From Pilot to Billions in Active Projects

Founded in 2023, Kaya AI was accepted into the Suffolk BOOST Accelerator and quickly found traction.

“We’re now the most quickly adopted software in Suffolk’s portfolio,” Selz said. Client projects span everything from single-family homes to data centers. “Everyone has issues with the supply chain, and we’re grateful we’re able to help.”

Following its official 2024 launch, Kaya now manages supply chain coordination across billions of dollars in active construction projects.

Selz sees it as more than a business opportunity. “Ultimately, I think integrating tools like AI can enable teams to do more with the same number of workers. That’s going to be imperative to the survival of the industry.”

The Human Factor

Still, Selz is quick to note: AI won’t replace people in construction.

“There’s too much complexity and risk in construction to turn any project over to AI. This is about how to capitalize on the strengths of AI, such as its ability to analyze data, recognize patterns and expand your team’s capabilities. That gives humans time to focus on the higher-order strategic work and relationships that this industry is built on.”

The Hard Truth

Supply chain headaches are crushing projects. AI alone won’t solve them. But platforms like Kaya AI point to a smarter path forward — one where machines crunch the numbers and humans focus on building.

Because if construction keeps running supply chains like it’s 1999, the industry’s survival is what’s really at risk.

See how Bluebeam can streamline your projects.

Start free trial
A digital illustration of a multi-story building highlighting sections of plastic-based materials in bright orange, symbolizing hidden plastics in construction and their environmental impact.

The Hidden Plastic Problem in Construction—and How to Fix It

  • Health, Safety, and Compliance, Sustainability
Why AEC professionals must confront plastics on the jobsite, and the steps they can take to reduce them

By 2050, construction could outpace packaging as the world’s top user of plastics, bringing serious risks to people and the planet. But AEC professionals have the power to change that trajectory.

Plastics on the Jobsite

Walk any jobsite and you’ll find it: PVC pipes stacked high, vinyl flooring ready to roll, paint cans lined up. Hidden in plain sight, plastics are becoming construction’s dirtiest secret.

While exact data for 2023 is still emerging, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported that in 2019 the world generated approximately 353 million metric tons of plastic waste. Packaging alone accounted for roughly 42% of that total—the single largest contributing category.

According to OECD-based analysis, building and construction currently account for roughly 17% of global plastic use. If left unchecked, demand for construction plastics is projected to nearly double by 2050—to about 150 million tonnes—surpassing the level of plastic packaging production in 2019.

The damage doesn’t stop at disposal. Plastic building materials pollute at every stage: fossil fuel extraction, manufacturing, installation and use. That means greenhouse gas emissions, microplastics and toxic additives—all putting workers, communities and the environment at risk.

Certifications and standards aren’t keeping pace, which means the AEC community is left holding the line.

Why We Keep Using Plastics

“Cost remains a key driver of plastic use in buildings,” said Teresa McGrath, chief research officer at Habitable.

That’s critical in affordable housing, but the long-term cost may be steep. Plastic is lightweight, flexible, low-maintenance and easy to install. On paper, the embodied carbon can look lower than materials like brick or cement fiber siding. But plastics often fail on durability, meaning more gets used—and wasted—over time.

Just one example: Construction accounts for roughly 60-70% of PVC use, despite its toxicity to humans and the environment. Of course, it’s preferable to the lead pipes it’s replaced to transport water. Still, the European Union is phasing out PVC, although it’s widely used in the US.

In many cases, plastics aren’t obvious—from the acrylics and polyurethanes in paint to the polypropylene in carpet to the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in vinyl flooring and siding—leading Habitable to title its policy brief “Buildings’ Hidden Plastic Problem.”

“In latex acrylic paint, the binders are all plastic,” McGrath said. “Engineered wood, like plywood and MDF, is bound together with a plastic binder.”

Why Plastics Fail Us

Several years ago, Habitable researchers ranked building product types from best to worst in terms of human health and environmental concerns. The colorful scheme runs from green to yellow to orange to red.

“Plastics were almost always the most hazardous at every lifecycle stage,” McGrath said.

The reasons are many:

  • Fossil fuel roots. Plastics are made from oil, gas and coal—and use fossil fuel energy in their manufacture.
  • Toxic chemicals. Researchers have expressed concerns about potentially hazardous chemicals in plastics, many of which haven’t been identified, let alone studied.
  • On-site hazards. One of the top causes of workplace asthma is installing spray foam, which contains isocyanate, a highly reactive chemical compound.
  • Fire risk. All plastic is extremely flammable, requiring the addition of flame retardants that create harmful gases when they burn, putting firefighters and building occupants at risk.
  • Microplastics. Wear and tear of paints and coatings contributes to a sizable portion of microplastics in the ocean, along with loss of raw plastic material used to manufacture extruded building products.
  • Persistence. Plastic lasts essentially forever in landfills.

Why Recycling Isn’t the Answer

On many construction sites, plastic waste is commingled with other demolition debris and sent to transfer stations. There, it may be sorted for recycling or product take-back, converted into refuse-derived fuel or—if deemed low-value—sent to landfill.

Despite recyclability labels, only 9% of plastic actually gets recycled, with 19% incinerated, 50% landfilled and the rest burned, dumped or leaked into the environment, according to the OECD.

The US discards about 1.1 million tonnes of plastic from carpet annually. Nationally, only around 5% of that is recycled—and just 1% is recycled back into new carpet. California outperforms the national average, achieving roughly 21% recycling in 2020 and reaching 35% in 2023.

In collaboration with Habitable, global design practice Perkins&Will analyzed flooring in K-12 schools—specifically a case study of a 185,116-square-foot building. The firm found that over the school’s 60-year lifespan, carpet, vinyl and rubber flooring together generate about 71 tons of plastic waste. Carpet typically contributes the most, followed by vinyl and rubber.

Cutting Plastic at the Source

The best solution is assessing plastic use at the start and considering alternatives.

“Start reducing plastics by creating a baseline from your last project,” McGrath said. “Get the Informed® color ranking for all of the products you used and see where there are opportunities to improve.”

“Start as early as possible in your design and be intentional about the product types you’re choosing,” she added.

From there, engage with the supply chain to discuss availability, cost and performance of nonplastic materials, and benchmark your before-and-after progress.

“We’re working with USGBC on an integrative design credit that’s focused on plastics reduction,” said McGrath. “You would discuss your goals around plastic reduction as a team during the charette phase and do a before-and-after benchmark at the product type level.”

The Bottom Line

Plastic isn’t just a packaging problem—it’s a building problem. And it’s one the industry can solve. Every choice matters: what you specify, what you install and what you push back on.

The future of sustainable construction isn’t plastic, but what we build instead.

See how digital tools help track smarter material choices.

Start free trial
Trending