The architect, project manager, and builder, along with the hospital’s senior scientists, formed a strong and effective team to complete this project on schedule and within budget. The goal was to build high-quality research space flexible enough to accommodate evolving technologies without the immediate need for renovation and associated new capital reinvestment with every new grant.

Known as the Karp Family Research Laboratories, this facility increases the hospital’s research space by more than 60 percent. The building is surrounded by notable neighbors such as the Merck Research Laboratories, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and the Center for Life Science Boston.

Children’s Hospital Boston is the primary pediatric teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School and home to the world’s largest pediatric research facility, with a staff of 1,200 scientists and staff. It ranks fifth among independent hospitals in research and funding. Since 1869, scientists at Children’s have set the pace in pediatric research and identifying treatments and therapies for many debilitating diseases.

Layout and Features of the Building

In the Hospital’s previous facility, the Enders Research Complex, individual laboratories and support space were separated by offices and did not foster the kind of interaction and collaboration the scientists wanted. The new flexible building with modular laboratories lends itself to evolving research changes.

On the first floor are a public lobby, restaurant, service area, and loading dock. The second floor houses the aquatic and vivarium research labs, while the third floor contains the rodent facilities. This location allows researchers’ access to the animals and minimizes the inconvenience of going between the animals and the research labs.

The remaining nine floors house a variety of labs including endocrinology, genetics, hematology/oncology, developmental biology, immunology, vascular biology, and pathology. Two penthouse floors house the utilities and mechanical systems. Beneath the building, five levels of parking provide 300 spaces.

Three floors of the Karp Laboratories are used by neighboring facilities including Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center, to expand their own research efforts.

“This is a unique facility in and of itself,” says Paul Query, principal with Murphy & McManus, a firm that provides real estate development services to not-for-profit clients. “We want to be a good neighbor in sharing resources with the community.”

The building is designed around zones of activity. Sixty percent of the building is fixed and is comprised of biology wet labs or specialty science rooms. In the labs, sensitive microscopes, tissue sampling, and research activities are segregated, creating sub-environments within the lab. Most of the cabinetry below the counters is modular and can be reconfigured within the labs. All of the utilities enter through the ceiling to provide continuous bands of power, data, and gas over each lab bench. There are also wet sink areas at the end of each aisle and fume hoods distributed strategically throughout the building.

The remaining 40 percent of the building consists of the laboratory support areas, which are both flexible and tailored for specific uses. They are organized around a linear equipment corridor, with a flex zone at one end designed to be either office or lab space. There are opportunities for collaboration and interaction in the office zone and along the linear equipment corridor. In addition, there are four “cross corridors” on each floor that encourage movement and interaction between labs, support areas, and office zones. Four atria have panoramas back to the main Hospital and of the Harvard School of Medicine and the surrounding area. Natural light sources, a lounge, kitchen area, and general work areas provide a relaxing work environment.

Project Challenges

Numerous issues created challenges from the start: a constrained site, an ambitious schedule, hospital leadership changes, substantial budget uncertainty, design changes, and project leadership changes.

One of the greatest challenges was a highly constrained site. The 25,000-sf zero lot line site, encircled by Children’s Hospital on three sides and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center on the fourth side, is located on the last available property owned by Children’s Hospital.

“This urban site was so valuable that it needed to be maximized,” says Richard Kobus, AIA, FACHA, senior principal with Tsoi/Kobus & Associates Inc., the project designer. “There was no more land to be had in this dense urban setting.”

Another challenge was the aggressive schedule. The original goal was to have the shell and core under construction within one year. At the same time, leadership changes at the top of the organization and budgetary uncertainty were creating additional stress for the team.

“The hospital was suffering from financial pressure from operating cost overruns so it was in the red for several years,” said Kobus. “Obviously the facility was going through a lot of reorganization to both stem those losses and to attract new leadership.”

After the initial design in 2000, the institution realized that additional funding would allow for an improved project with growth opportunities. Concurrently, new leadership came onboard late in the decision-making process. The result was a 15-month delay, but it allowed for identification of improvements such as increased parking and square footage, and a more substantial budget.

After these obstacles were met, the exterior design was changed during construction documents from metal and curtainwall to precast concrete. It was also discovered that there were gas and electric lines, along with a primary high-pressure steam line directly on the site that required relocation, further adding to the budget and schedule.

When construction resumed in 2001, unforeseen challenges occurred where the project stopped. The five-story, slurry wall-constructed garage on the small site increased costs by $50,000 per parking space.

Additional challenges stemmed from project leadership. Because of the extensive changes midway through the project, the owner lost faith in the original general contractor and named another one. With the change in senior management and reorganization of departments, the project lost momentum and focus.

“There was an utter lack of confidence in everything: in the design team, the contractor, the science design team, and in the numbers,” says Kobus. “It was because there was so little reporting on the job and consistency of communication back to senior management.”

The only continuity in the project was the design team of Tsoi/Kobus & Associates (architecture), BR+A Consulting Engineers (MEP engineer), and McNamara/Salvia Inc. (structural engineers).

Correcting the Problems

The first step in getting the project back on track was the appointment of Query as project manager. His first tasks were to re-establish the budget and schedules, and redevelop the project team.

“Paul realized what was missing in the form of comprehensive financial records and consistent analysis and drew senior management back by giving them the tools they needed to participate in the project,” said Kobus.

Query describes this transition: “By putting the right systems in place and communicating with management regularly, we rebuilt the confidence from senior management, the board, and the entire team”

During the 15-month hiatus, the board of directors provided unwavering support of the project. The new senior leadership team immediately came on board to recognize the challenges ahead. The addition of Query as project manager brought discipline and structure in forecasting and design controls throughout the balance of the job.

The newly formed lab planning team made up of senior scientists and staff engineers began meeting every two weeks. Constant communication between the design team and the scientists moved the project forward.

“It was very important that the senior scientists were engaged in the project directly,” says Query. “We asked each principal investigator to identify a leader within his or her team and focus on the transfer of the teams from the existing locations into this building.”

The program layout was reviewed with each scientist and his or her team. Operational needs were reviewed in great detail, including the amount of storage required and the equipment that would be transferred. The design team provided detailed as-builts of the early framing on every floor. From those plans, the layout and the transfer of stored material, hazardous material, equipment, and individual carrels were verified to ensure that all would move in one single moving day. In addition, utility systems were reviewed to ensure adequate service to the building.

The lab planning team served as a central organizing force and was instrumental in the creation of the flexible modular approach. The team participated in commissioning and early onsite inspection. Video tape of the commissioning process provides a record for future hires and future generations of institutional and engineering staff.

Positive Outcomes

“The outcome is a fully occupied building that supports the diversity of science within it,” says Kobus. “It is beloved by its scientists and people from around the country. It was built economically, and has proven to be a good model for collaborative research.”

The flexible and modular design allowed the project to be on time and on budget. The robust infrastructure in the building ensures that the right systems are in place for needs not anticipated at the start of the design. The flexible building and infrastructure can support almost any kind of science that is thrust upon it.

In addition, the social spaces such as the atria are now valuable morale boosters and useful recruiting tools.

The plan for interaction and collaboration was modeled for the science in the building, but it really became a model for the project. When the project was in trouble, all of the members of the team regrouped.

“Paul drew everyone on the team to collaborate on moving forward, on time, and within a reasonable expectation of budget,” says Kobus. “The project scope and quality were very important, but required re-evaluation of costs. Regular communication with senior scientists and senior management was crucial throughout the course of the project.”

Query’s creation of systems to provide comprehensive financial records to senior management, and tenacious analysis and constant course corrections along the way, were vital in bringing the project to fruition.

“I feel that the success of any project really depends on the strength and the integrity of the team overall,” says Query. “By empowering the team, I know they will rise to the occasion and execute their work at the highest level of professionalism. This project demanded that we all pull together as a team and meet the challenges that faced us.”

By Lisa Brown