Core labs—which are spaces that focus around a type of (typically expensive) equipment or expertise that multiple disciplines can use as a shared resource—are becoming one of the key organizing elements for fostering scientific collaboration.

“Cores labs are important design tools because they can be used to increase interdisciplinary collaboration which in turn increases research discovery and productivity,” says Jeff Zynda, an associate principal with Boston-based Payette.

Core Typologies

Used widely in the design community, the term “core lab” is defined in varying ways. According to Zynda, there are three primary types of core facilities: stand-alone cores, departmentalized cores, and non-lab cores.

Stand-alone cores are large purpose-built facilities centered around key pieces of equipment rather than specific types of research. They tend to be utility intensive and have special requirements for supporting the intended equipment. Stand-alone cores typically include high-bay spaces, increased floor-loading requirements, and dedicated air handling units to deal with equipment heat loads. Examples include NMR and MRI facilities, mass spectrometers, and biocontainment labs.

Departmentalized cores are closely aligned with a specific type of research discipline and are frequently adjacent to the departmental labs rather than at a centralized location. Examples include x-ray crystallography, histology, and cell sorting facilities.

“Departmental cores also have increased utility requirements, but they tend to be less-intensive in those matters than stand-alone cores,” says Zynda.

Non-lab cores are spaces like conference rooms, break areas, and informal classrooms. Typical design features include access to whiteboards, wireless data connectivity, and casual seating.

“Non-lab cores serve as a kind of social glue to bring people together collaboratively. These more informal environments are where the exchange of ideas takes place,” says Zynda.

Designing Around the Core

Pennsylvania State University’s “Gateway to the Sciences,” a 330,000-sf complex designed by Payette in collaboration with Philadelphia-based Bower Lewis Thrower Architects, uses a variety of core spaces to anchor the Life Sciences and Chemistry Research Buildings together in a massive multi-disciplinary research environment.

The two buildings are linked by physically centralized clusters of laboratory and non-lab cores. Stand-alone cores with laser labs, NMR facilities, and mass spectrometers are collocated in a central area flanked with informal spaces like conference rooms, auditoriums, and a café to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration.

“The collocation of lab cores with the non-lab cores was a critical aspect of the building’s interdisciplinary design,” says Zynda.

This crossroads approach to the centralized area is augmented by a walk-up design with wide staircases that reinforce social interaction.

“We organized this facility around a walk-up layout to maximize the potential for different researchers from different disciplines to run into one another and share ideas in these informal collaboration spaces,” says Zynda.

Another key element of the Penn State complex was a focus on research flexibility.

“We weren’t exactly sure what the research function was going to be as we were developing all of the core areas, therefore many utilities were fed from above to maximize flexibility. Separate dedicated air handling systems for each area allowed for different programs to be fit-out as they were established,” says Zynda.

Fostering Creativity

According to Zynda, the future of core lab planning lies in creating highly flexible environments that allow core facilities to grow where they are needed. One way to do this is to situate immovable elements such as stairways, shafts, and utility chaises in a way that creates large open floorplates that can be adapted for any purpose.

This strategy was implemented in the University of Pittsburgh’s recently opened 11-story, 330,000-sf Biomedical Science Tower 3 (BST3). The sheer towers and elevator shafts are located outside of a large open area that allows for the development of flexible core labs—which constitute approximately 45 percent of building space. Moveable casework systems and equipment areas are combined with ceiling service plates that allow electrical, gas, vacuum, and other services to be delivered from overhead and connected on a plug-and-play basis so researchers can reconfigure space as necessary, without costly renovation. The undefined core laboratory spaces designated for future fit-out were designed with high-bay space of at least 15 feet of clear space to accommodate a variety of core functions from NMR spectrometers to mass spectrometry platforms.

“We see the industry trending even further towards the use of highly flexible floorplates that allow cores to be embedded almost anywhere in a facility,” says Zynda.

Shadow Studies

In cases where the end users are still undefined during the design stage, “shadow studies” are conducted to determine the potential core needs of independent laboratory groups. Lab designers spend a week following around the kinds of researchers a facility intends to accommodate in order to observe first hand their daily routine, and to analyze their needs and work activities. From this process, design parameters can be developed based on accurate information to optimize the use of the space.

“Many times when designing a building you don’t know your users up front or what kind of core needs they are going to have.  This is challenging because the core is typically an area where you need to know the infrastructure ahead of time to plan for anticipated adjacencies and specific building criteria that are likely to be required, such as low vibration limits,” says Sarah Holton, an architect with Payette.

Payette recently used shadow studies to help design a massive 1,055,000-sf multi-building complex that is currently in development.

“We threw out all previous lab planning assumptions and followed researchers campus-wide. We realized there were researchers who needed some labs to be adjacent to space they use on an hourly basis, and there were some core labs that they wouldn’t mind walking down the street to use. That gave us a good understanding of some of the needs without knowing the users,” says Holton.

Doing shadow studies with a spectrum of different groups also allows facility planners to see where various needs overlap and where they can exploit opportunities to create shared spaces, essentially defining core opportunities through analysis of research behavior.

“We are really hoping to promote interdisciplinary research with this lab so there is not a boundary between one research group and another. The researchers should have the flexibility to arrange where people can sit based on achieving the greatest synergies for collaborative work, not on creating artificial groupings. We strive to create a plan that allows more sharing of lab support and eliminates the need for redundant space by individual groups,” says Holton.

Flexibility for the Future

Zynda and Holton see a number of future design trends that leverage the theme of core labs combined with space flexibility. In future multi-disciplinary collaborative research buildings, as much as 50 percent of space could be dedicated to core laboratories.

“Embedded core methodology allows you to design for the unknown. Traditional lab support areas, if properly designed, can be used to facilitate the organic growth of cores,” says Zynda.

Another notable trend is the shift towards creating stand-alone core laboratories that are designed around types of research expertise rather than equipment. This model also utilizes a specialized staff trained in a particular tool-intensive research technique.

Other emerging trends include increased collaboration between academic research institutions and private industry, the growing importance of non-lab cores as centers for information exchange, and a leveling off of the cost premiums associated with creating flexible space.

“We’re finding that there is a higher first material cost premium in the range of five to 15 percent, associated with flexible casework systems. However, because of the labor savings related to the installation, the costs generally balance out between a traditional fixed approach and flexible systems. That doesn’t apply to every situation, of course, but there really appears to be a very minimal premium for building in a lot of these flexible elements,” says Zynda.

By Johnathon Allen

We welcome your Questions and Comments

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