Also in 2001, the University created a new genome sciences department by combining its existing genetics and molecular biotechnology departments. Two years later, Dr. Robert Waterston, one of the key architects of the Human Genome Project, joined the University. That same year, in 2003, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced a $70-million gift to enhance the University’s position in genome sciences research. Most of the gift—$60 million—was earmarked for construction of new research space.

“The Gates donation changed the course of our bioengineering facility even though it was already well into design,” says Jill Morelli, director of facilities for the University of Washington’s School of Medicine. “The new funding made it possible to create a larger facility that could provide enhanced support for cross-disciplinary research between bioengineering and genome sciences.”

To round out the rest of the nearly $98 million total construction cost for the new facility, the University received additional funding from the federal government, private foundations, and individual donors.

The resulting 296,000-sf building is now known as the William H. Foege Building, named in honor of Foege, a 1961 UW medical school graduate whose accomplishments include devising the global strategy that led to the eradication of smallpox in the late 1970s, and serving as chief of the federal Centers for Disease Control during President Jimmy Carter’s years in office.

Facility Layout

The Foege Building is separated into two wings, 122,643 sf serving bioengineering, and 123,990 sf devoted to genome sciences. The wings are connected by an enclosed four-story pedestrian bridge that includes seating areas with white boards and kitchenettes to encourage interaction between researchers, students, and faculty who are using the bridge.

While the bioengineering side consolidates and expands the University’s undergraduate and graduate teaching and research programs, the genome sciences side is devoted almost entirely to research.

Both wings have a similar layout for infrastructure and use the same types of mechanical and HVAC equipment to reduce maintenance costs and allow systems interoperability. In addition, there is 26,000 asf of collaborative space throughout both wings, and a 23,456 asf vivarium in the basement of bioengineering that will expand the University’s ability to house more animals and larger research animals.

Laboratory casework within the bioengineering labs is located around the lab perimeter leaving an open space in the middle to set up equipment to conduct various kinds of experiments. This flexibility is further enhanced by the inclusion of overhead electrical hook-ups designed to accommodate a wide range of specialized instrumentation.

Hallways within the bioengineering wing include built-in bench seating for students waiting for classes to encourage interaction among students, researchers, and faculty.

“In our genome sciences wing, the labs use a more traditional wet-bench configuration since investigators in this section typically work in large, multi-disciplinary teams,” says Morelli. “To facilitate this, the genome labs have moveable modular lab benches and computation workstations that can easily be rearranged.”

Morelli adds that during construction of the genome sciences wing it was determined that more informatics space was needed so that computational modeling could take place in close proximity to the research. To accommodate this, the lab design was modified to eliminate several wet bench set-ups and fume hoods to make room for additional computer workstations. While not ideal, this transformation was handled seamlessly and illustrates the system-wide flexibility built into the facility.

“Researchers in both departments share support space and share the use of large equipment such as tissue culture analyzers, centrifuges, and freezers in order to reduce the redundancy of equipment and save costs,” says Morelli.

She adds that other areas shared by all disciplines include the facility’s 200-seat auditorium, a glass washing facility, a coffee bar and cafeteria, and building storage which are all located on the first and lower floors of the building.

Customization Costs

“Although the two wings of our new facility do have a lot of design elements in common, there were significant differences related to the amount of lab customization in each wing, when that customization was able to take place, and the costs associated with customization,” says Morelli.

She explains that lab customization within the bioengineering wing averaged less than $10 per sf, while customization within the genome sciences wing was closer to $100 per sf.

“Many of the cost distinctions were due to the fact that bioengineering is a department with established researchers, and well-defined expectations and lab standards,” says Morelli. “Bioengineering teams are led by principal investigators who work directly on their individual projects. As a result, we were able to design the new laboratories to accommodate the research during the design phase for each specific investigator.”

She explains that in contrast to this, at the time design began on the genome sciences wing, the department was completely new, with a new chair, new administrators, and some new faculty. This dynamic situation, which continued into construction, contributed to much higher customization costs.

“When the architects began designing the genome science wing, none of the actual researchers were chosen yet so they could not participate in the initial design process,” says Morelli.  “Instead, to help the architects define design parameters, we created a panel of experts composed of department chairs of the researchers that were most likely to go into the new building.

“Actual customization of the genome sciences wing could not occur until construction had already begun,” she continues. “The faculty was still being hired during the design process so our project architects did not know who the building was being designed for, so they were forced to make educated architectural guesses.”

Morelli adds that this timing dilemma led her to examine the issue of customization in more detail. She is currently writing a white paper to address the impact of customization in the planning and design of labs. The white paper will review actual lab planning case studies and will investigate how the timing of naming a building’s actual occupants can affect issues such as architectural planning and final project cost.

Lessons Learned

“Often there is not enough strategic thinking devoted to determining when the actual lab occupant should be brought into the design process for customization,” says Morelli.  “Sometimes there is no choice based on grant deadlines or faculty changes, but better insight is needed into what drives the customization process and when researchers should influence final design decisions.  Key decision makers need to make this decision based on a thoughtful process.”

She adds that the only constant is that customization for a specific researcher does need to occur at some point. The question is whether customization should ideally occur early in the project, very late, or somewhere in-between and how much customization will be allowed.

“Most lab planners seem to agree that one year before move-in is the very latest that identification of the occupant should occur. This will allow the design team time to work with the researcher to identify needs that are different than the building provides.” says Morelli.  “However, even then it is prudent to anticipate last minute adjustments.”

Morelli points out there are risks associated with both extremes.

“If researchers are brought into the design phase too early, costs will most likely increase because the planning team will find themselves in a reiterative design process,” says Morelli. “However, if you engage them too late, there is a greater chance that something critical to their science will be missing and your building can no longer respond to it.”

According to Morelli, finding the perfect timing for initial customization will most likely be an on-going challenge for facility planners and architects alike. She adds however, that customization will also be accomplished through the life of the project until it is demolished.

By Amy Cammell