“Cross-disciplinary labs are created as part of a larger research strategy and the features that work for one may not be ideal for another. So we conducted interviews with the users and managers of these types of facilities discussing both quantitative and qualitative things to see what patterns emerged,” says Bill Wilson, a principal with Wilson Architects.

In the process of conducting the survey, the team discovered that there were three distinctive types of academic multi-disciplinary buildings: traditional, transitional, and new entity.

Traditional facilities maintain their existing departmental structure and evolve the department by bringing in new people. In this model, the dean initiates the program, department chairs decide how it will function, and there is a single consensus. Neighborhoods in traditional facilities are generally organized by function.

Transitional buildings bring two separate, sometimes disparate groups together as tenants in one structure. A provost initiates the project, but more than one dean is involved in the decision making process and they must arrive at a mutual consensus. Transitional lab neighborhoods are generally based on organizational affiliation.

New entity labs are programmed from the ground up to support a newly created organization and culture. In the case of new entities, the project is initiated by a provost, multiple deans come to an agreement, and the lab director makes the final decision based on radical new approaches to how science should be done. As a result, sometimes other researchers will choose not to join if they are in disagreement with the approach. Neighborhoods in new entity building are designed to maximize synergy.

“There is just as much opportunity for change in a traditional type of multi-disciplinary project as there is in a new entity. In the case of transitional buildings, groups are brought together that maybe were never designed to coexist. The hope is that they are going to do things together even though they have two separate Xerox accounts. So there are different kinds of leverage involved, depending on facility type,” says Wilson.

Patterns of consensus and divergence emerged regarding the relative importance of each feature based on the institution’s existing research strategy and the culture.

“Certain issues, like criteria-specific space, were important to everyone, while there was a polarity of preference around features like aesthetic and flexibility that perhaps carry greater cost or risk,” says Chris Martin, a principal with Wilson Architects who was also involved in conducting the survey.

Traditional Facilities

Harvard’s soon to be completed 135,000-gsf cross-disciplinary Laboratory for the Interface of Science and Engineering (LISE) is a prime example of the traditional model. The facility, which was designed by Rafael Moneo in collaboration with Wilson Architects, consists of three below-grade floors and a tower that sits above ground-level on large columns.

“Departmental structure is very strong at Harvard. So this facility is designed to augment departments which already exist. It is in no way going to take anything away from existing departments. In traditional structures the existing department is reinforced and added to rather than dismantled,” says Wilson.

The defining element of LISE is that there are clear criteria established for each area of the building, including cleanroom, high bay, and cryogenic capabilities. The underground section utilizes slurry wall construction, with all nanotech activities occurring on the lowest floor. An underground structure covered by grass houses the cleanroom space, while the tower houses conventional dry labs.

Being criteria-driven proved to be one of the most significant design factors for all three facility types. The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill’s Science Complex, another traditional facility developed by Wilson Architects, is also heavily criteria driven, as is the University of California, Berkeley’s Stanley Hall, a new entity building designed by Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership. All three feature a wide range of focused research functionality with an emphasis on quality over quantity.

“It’s an overwhelming fact that quality trumps quantity regardless of lab type,” says Wilson.

Transitional Facilities

University of Chicago’s Gordon Building (previously called the Center for Integrated Science), designed by Ellenzweig Associates, is a transitional type building where two deans with very different cultures—one from the medical school, the other from the physical sciences division—were asked to coexist in one facility.

In transitional facilities human factors such as social setting and context tended to be more important than in traditional labs. In facilities such as these, the size and location of office space, available parking, and overall aesthetic can become significant issues.

“A lot more effort and money is spent developing the human factor in transitional projects because there are issues regarding politics and precedent,” says Wilson.

Social interaction was a major factor in the development of Wyeth-Ayerst’s new R&D chemistry building. This transitional lab brings together different research teams to focus on the company’s ongoing cancer initiative. The facility’s unique features include an emphasis on transparency and an extensive use of natural daylight. A 170-ft long sky light combined with strategically located shafts and glass walls provides 40 foot-candles of natural light to interior labs. All the offices are on the outside and most have no doors. Pedestrian traffic flow and break areas are programmed to increase casual interaction.

“This building is really about people meeting and being able to see each other’s work even though they are in different disciplines. People can look across and nod to each other or walk around and clearly see everything that is going on,” says Wilson.

New Entities

New entity labs place a high priority on interactive social settings and powerful technology support. The Broad Institute, a joint venture between MIT and Harvard, was designed to support the research endeavors of Eric Lander, an MIT mathematician who was partially responsible for mapping the human genome.

“He was coming from a huge space with endless sequencers and huge server capacity that MIT developed in a former bottling facility, and he was thinking about how to create an institute that would be able to take his research ideas to the next level,” says Martin.

The Broad Institute, a 230,000-sf multi-disciplinary institute designed by Elkus/Manfredi Architects, features a unique layout that accommodates a wide diversity of research. Each group utilizes bench-side computing platforms for automated genome sequencing and genetic profiling scale up of compiled data. The facility is organized around technical zones with extensive bioinformatics capabilities. Traffic flow is designed to promote collaborative interaction among groups.

“Eric Lander coined the term ‘sock trail’ to illustrate the notion of being able to casually roam between labs, through instrumentation space, and into breakout areas,” says Martin.

Consensus and Conclusions

Analysts found that all multi-disciplinary buildings—regardless of whether they are traditional, transitional, or new entity—must have the ability to react to change, recruit research talent, and support diverse teams with next generation tools.

“Throughout our interviews the quality of space was clearly foremost in people’s minds. Facilities can be smaller in size and more integrated as long as their functionality is very high,” says Wilson.

There was also broad consensus on the importance of considering how facilities will enhance recruitment and retention of talented researchers by developing dynamic communities with unique culture.

“Terms like multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary are really connected to a strategy of recruiting people and envisioning the future. It’s a matter of seriously considering what the next 20 years are going to look like on your campus, and, of course, the goal is to attract the best and brightest minds possible,” says Wilson.

By Johnathon Allen

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894