While this emerging approach is yielding exciting scientific progress, it is creating unique challenges for the engineers and architects who must meet the ever-changing needs of cutting-edge researchers. Michael Reagan, principal architect for science and technology at Burt Hill architectural and engineering firm, has identified six problems that arise from the need to create interdisciplinary research environments:

1) How do you economically provide the appropriate lab utilities in a building that houses a variety of research programs with diverse infrastructure needs requiring different types, quantities, and qualities of lab utilities?

2) How do you provide different support:lab ratios for a variety of research programs housed in the same building? Biomedical research requires a 1:1 ratio of support:lab, for example, while chemistry calls for 1:3, and can be as low as 1:9 for engineering and nanotechnology.

3) How do you allow the research groups in a facility to change size over time?

4) How do you provide diverse research programs with the infrastructure they need when their needs sometimes conflict? For example, if you have nanotechnology next to chemistry, how do you design for collaboration without contamination?

5) How do you accommodate very different air supply and exhaust requirements within the same building? Chemistry, for example, requires high exhaust capacity, while nanotechnology research actually can be hampered by the vibration caused by the movement of air.

6) How do you design a building without the input of the end users, as you often do not know who they are until the very end of the process?

Instrumentation Leads the Way

Designing specialized research facilities used to begin with a conversation about the number of researchers it will house, and what their specific needs would be. Interdisciplinary facilities generate different discussions.

“With the interdisciplinary lab buildings, you really need to start with instrument- and equipment-based planning,” says Reagan.

The reason for that is twofold: the increased proliferation of instruments throughout a laboratory building, and the unique set of environmental requirements that comes with these highly sensitive instruments. Reagan divides the instruments into three general categories: sample handling (e.g. biosafety cabinets) for handling samples; sample analysis (e.g. microscopes) for analyzing the samples; and data analysis (e.g. computers) for storing and analyzing the resulting data.

Confocal microscopes, for instance, require a highly specialized dark and vibration-free environment. Large instruments, such as a 900 megahertz NMR, are so expensive and require such specialized environments that most institutions invest in only one, which is shared by a large contingent of researchers. Biosafety cabinets for tissue culture processes often require a sterile environment. Server rooms for data storage also require specialized environmental conditions and are frequently segregated in own their own spaces.

On the other hand, many instruments that used to be relegated to certain types of spaces are now found throughout the laboratory building: Computers and microscopes are found in labs, alongside benches and biosafety cabinets; and there is often little difference in the equipment needs of “lab” spaces and “support” spaces.

Flexible Solutions for Flexible Design

“The thought process, then, involves questions about how big the lab should be, is it a bench-oriented laboratory, will we be able to reconfigure the benches, can we insert instruments and equipment?” explains Reagan. “All this points to the need for a great deal of flexibility, especially in terms of where the utilities are organized.”

That flexibility in utilities can be achieved in a number of ways, including the use of a side-wall utility system with an exterior spine, or a series of overhead utility clusters. In addition, all benches and equipment in the labs are on casters, so they can easily be moved around within the lab.

“We call these ‘mobile,’ meaning they are very easily moved, as opposed to ‘moveable,’ where you need a couple of people to pick them up and move them,” he says.

Burt Hill was part of the design team with Raphael Vinoly for the Van Andel Research Institute, a private research institute in Grand Rapids, Mich., that has a very large open lab to accommodate interdisciplinary groups.

“Flexibility was crucial because they had a vague notion that they wanted to concentrate on cancer research, but they didn’t know exactly who was going to move into the building,” he says.

The ratio of laboratory-to-lab-support approaches 1:1. The lab is very open, largely because of its sloped glass ceilings. All the labs have skylights, so none of the services can hang from above. Instead, all the benches have integrated lights, and services are supplied from the wall. An interstitial space above the corridor provides access to the utilities.

Burt Hill was part of the design team with BNIM Architects for another institution that placed a high priority on open and flexible lab spaces. The University of Texas Health Science Center is in the process of completing its new Institute for Molecular Medicine.

“The idea was to create a very open, lively laboratory to encourage interaction, so people could see each other,” says Reagan.

Open and mobile casework helped to accomplish that. All services come from above, with immediately adjacent alcoves and support spaces. All the hard pipe services, such as sinks, are on the perimeter, and the benches are moveable but not on casters. Specialized laboratories are in smaller alcoves and larger rooms, and all the offices are located across a bridge, with conference spaces shared between the two.

As one might expect, there are degrees of flexibility, depending on the needs of the institution, so architects and engineers need to be flexible, as well.

Virginia Polytechnic is beginning construction on a 102,000-gsf facility called the Institute for Critical Technologies and Applied Science. Burt Hill is part of the design team with Pei Cobb Freed.

“The goal of this building is to be able to accommodate whatever research is able to be funded when the building opens,” explains Reagan. “Open labs work well to a certain extent here, despite the narrow, linear floor plan necessitated by the site. We had a general idea that we needed some vibration-free spaces, maybe polymer chemistry, maybe some imaging, probably some informatics. The range was fairly wide, which made it critical that it be very flexible.”

Because it is not feasible to make an entire building vibration free, they decided to locate the vibration-free instruments on the lowest floor.

“But the upper floors can go anywhere from bioinformatics to synthetic chemistry,” he says.

That flexibility was accomplished in part by making the ratio of lab to lab support changeable. Some areas were designated as lab support, while others could easily be converted. All the offices are located off to the side.

Similarly, Cornell University’s interdisciplinary physical sciences building, currently in design development, is challenging because of the diverse needs of the disciplines it will house. Burt Hill is part of the design team with Koetter Kim Associates Inc.

Nanotechnology, which requires quiet, vibration-free spaces, is located in the basement. Researchers on the upper floors—synthetic chemistry and chemical biology—need a lot of air for a lot of fume hoods.

“We do have elevators and a shaft that line up, but you can’t tell this is the same building otherwise,” says Reagan.

“The lesson learned in design is, spend a lot of time figuring out what your module is, because it needs to work for a variety of uses,” he says.

By Lisa Wesel