Rather than organizing laboratories by traditional divisions of lab and lab support spaces, says Michael Reagan, principal and director of Science and Technology at Burt, Hill, an equipment-based planning strategy is more effective for designing today’s equipment-dense lab environments.

“For the most part, all equipment falls into three categories: sample handling, sample analysis, and data analysis,” says Reagan. “We’ve started thinking about the whole lab, including offices and support systems, as being able to accommodate any of these things at once.”

Lab planners and architects are employing a broad range of flexibility features to create such flexible spaces. Knowing which features will optimize flexibility and return on investment is key to project success.

Designing for the Unknown

As its name suggests, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies hosts a variety of scientific disciplines, including molecular biology, analytical biochemistry, microbiology, imaging, histology, tissue and cell culture, proteomics, and scientific computing and visualization. However, when the Center was being programmed, RPI did not know precisely which researchers would occupy the building. The Center was therefore programmed in a generic fashion, organized as open lab spaces capable of functioning as a large open lab as well as a series of smaller labs and support rooms.

A highly flexible model of lab bench was selected, equipped with casters, light enough to be moved by a single person, and motorized to allow quick conversion from an instrument bench to a computer bench. Services are delivered from above to benches via overhead carriers.

“The researchers use the motorized bench conversion feature quite a bit,” says Reagan. “We return about twice a year to see how they’re actually using the facility, and we see configurations dramatically changing from visit to visit. They’re using the lab bench the way it was intended.”

Like the RPI facility, the Institute for Molecular Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center is generically zoned to accommodate researchers who were unspecified during the programming phase. However, in contrast to the 50-50 balance of large and small spaces used at RPI, the Institute for Molecular Medicine consists of more large open lab spaces and fewer small support and specialized spaces. The shift towards more open labs is accompanied by the design of “in lab” support zones. Open alcoves adjoining main lab spaces are suitable for accommodating certain support functions. Casework systems are easily reconfigurable to facilitate future renovations. Overhead service carriers are integrated with a ceiling system to draw the light deep into the laboratory areas.

At Cornell University’s Physical Sciences Building, the challenge lay in devising a flexible structural module, for use throughout the building, that could accommodate a very wide range of uses by researchers in the physical sciences, including synthetic chemistry, chemical biology, physics, and engineering.

“Engineering researchers want places for lasers, microscopes, vibration-isolated areas, power sources, gas cylinders, pumps, and noisy equipment,” says Reagan.

These needs differed markedly from those of the chemists, located on the upper floor, where labs incorporate fume hoods and flexible lab benches.

In addition to being built upon the flexible structural module, the Physical Sciences Building features mechanical systems that were deliberately oversized to maximize the range of potential researchers who could occupy the space.

“There is a front-end cost to the oversized mechanicals,” says Reagan. “but it’s probably a very good long-range investment. Rather than tearing out your plenums and redoing them, you make them bigger and lower velocity—which, incidentally, saves energy right off the bat, due to reduced transport energies needed to push the air through those systems.”

Virginia Polytechnic Institute’s Institute of Critical Technology also needed to accommodate a range of uses, including research in characterization, bioinformatics, and organic chemistry. In addition, Virginia Tech elected to defer space assignments until well into the construction phase.

“They wanted the building to be able to support whatever types of research existed when it was built,” says Reagan.

The Institute’s zoning strategy consists of large laboratory areas broken into smaller units by intermittently placed, specialized support areas. The smaller lab units are of a scale intended to facilitate interaction among research teams.

The special requirements of extremely sensitive equipment—such as vibration-free spaces—posed some challenges, Reagan says.

“There was some extra cost involved in structure to make things a little more stable so you could put a very sensitive piece of equipment in,” says Reagan. “Fortunately, we made the decision to put a core lab on grade which means we don’t have to structure the whole building.

“We determined the names of researchers only after they stopped pouring the concrete,” he continues. “It’s laying out quite nicely. We’re fine-tuning all the spaces the way we intended, with no loss of flexibility.”

At Van Andel Research Institute, dramatic architecture dictated many laboratory planning decisions, including the need for a long, wide, open lab floor. The facility’s swooping glass roof precluded the use of flexible, overhead service connections. Instead, peninsula-style bench systems equipped with integral lighting are fed with service connections from the side. The unusual roof shape also creates a partial interstitial level above the equipment corridor. By providing easy access to services above refrigerators and freezers, this space increases flexibility at minimal additional cost.

The University of Pittsburgh’s Biomedical Science Tower, which was honored as R&D Magazine’s Lab of the Year in 1990, exemplifies how incorporating flexibility features in an original design can help with subsequent renovations. A service corridor running through the heart of the lab area contains easily serviceable utility boxes that plug into the back of standard casework.

“The service corridor with utility boxes approach has proven to be a pretty good premise over the years,” says Alex Wing, a principal at Burt Hill. “It has held up quite well.”

However, piecemeal renovations made to the facility over the years have carried a relatively high price tag per square foot. Originally designed with a ring of public corridors and a core lab with support corridors in the heart of the project, the original fitout broke down lab spaces into small cellular labs to support the science being performed in the facility at the time.

Current renovations are implementing a new lab-planning paradigm that brings circulation corridors into open laboratory spaces, making them serviceable parts of the laboratory and reducing overall cost per square foot. Implementing this approach building-wide, however, will require other changes.

“The larger open labs put higher demands on the mechanical system,” says Wing. “We may not be able to do the whole building like that. Without careful attention to the distribution of available air and chilled water, the building systems could ultimately be overwhelmed by the introduction of additional laboratory areas.”

Is Flexible Casework Worth It?

A 2004 renovation of a university laboratory building afforded a golden opportunity to pin down exactly how much of a price premium is involved when installing flexible casework. Because the lab renovation was aimed at improving recruitment of science faculty, the university did not know at the time of the renovation who would be occupying the labs. The number of laboratories to be renovated was sufficiently large that a variety of lab flexibility levels could be tested.

Three lab types were implemented: Option A, a traditional fixed-bench, fixed-casework environment with fixed, piped services; Option B, a more-flexible environment incorporating movable benches, mobile casework on casters, and services provided through fixed overhead service columns; and Option C, a highly flexible laboratory environment employing height-adjustable benches, movable casework, and flexible overhead service carriers.

Option A, the fixed-bench laboratory renovation, was achieved for $220/sf, a fairly economical price in 2004 dollars. Option B, the middle option incorporating some flexible options, cost slightly more--three percent more than the cost of the fixed-bench lab. Option C, the most flexible environment, cost a full 20 percent more than Option A.

“If you implement these flexible approaches in a new building rather than a renovation, the premium you pay for flexibility will be considerably less than 20 percent,” Reagan points out. “In a new building, the architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing costs won’t be that different with the flexible approach. We estimate the premium of flexible casework in a newly constructed laboratory to be more in the neighborhood of five percent.”

That five percent price premium can easily pay for itself when the time comes to renovate flexible laboratory spaces, Reagan says.

“Say you have a single 10,000-sf renovation 10 years after a lab building is built,” he says. “With the fixed lab, it would cost about $295 per square foot. You basically have to take it apart and put it all back together again, because the casework is fixed in place. On the other hand, if you use the very mobile casework, you do pay a premium up front, but the renovation cost for the casework is likely to be about $152 per square foot—85 percent less—which means you are saving millions. And that’s just for a single renovation in 10 years, which is pretty conservative today. The more renovations you have, the greater the savings over time.”

Does It Pay to Delay or Defer a Lab Fitup?

When a lab’s eventual users are unknown, it can also make financial sense to delay designing the fitup of laboratory spaces.

“A lot of aspects of a laboratory building will not be affected by the laboratory fitup,” says Reagan. “It won’t impact the roof, the stairs, the structure. A certain amount of the facility is at risk, however, and finding out on move-in day that the laboratory spaces aren’t right can result in significant expense.”

One option is to wait until the end of the construction documents phase to begin designing the laboratory fitup. This delayed-fitup option can yield savings, Reagan says.

“You kick in another set of design phases and construction documents before the end of construction so that it all finishes up at the same time,” says Reagan, “recognizing that there’s going to be a slight premium for the shorter time frame. When we run the numbers for a 200,000-sf building at $300 per square foot, we see a slight savings from this delayed approach.”

Another option consists of entirely deferring the designing of the fitup until the building’s shell and core are completely constructed. This option can also save money, Reagan says.

“In general, the deferred approach takes more time, but less money, and the finished product is more finely tuned,” says Reagan.

Given the increasingly fluid nature of scientific research, Reagan says, delaying or deferring fitup generally makes a lot of sense.

“The bottom line is, it’s a lot cheaper to draw changes than to build changes,” says Reagan. “Tearing up a blueprint is one thing. Tearing out walls, infrastructure, and casework is quite another.”

By Deborah Kreuze

We welcome your Questions and Comments

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