Carnegie Mellon University’s Highmark Center for Health, Wellness and Athletics represents the largest in a series of recent initiatives designed to enhance the student experience and boost the university’s competitive appeal. It also marks a definitive break from the old “sink-or-swim” posture that characterized campus environments across the country for decades.
Facing the mandate to grow university research expenditures to $1 billion by 2028, Arizona State University’s (ASU) Research Space Planning group was charged with determining how much lab space would be required to meet that goal and what the cost would be. Under the leadership of senior director Erik Halle, the planning group engaged in a multi-stage process analyzing utilization and cost data, benchmarking, and incorporating user feedback to arrive at the answer. Introducing new practices like improved lab-to-gross-square-foot ratios and the recovery of underutilized space, among other measures, culminated in meeting the $1 billion target almost three years early without additional construction.
The University of Alabama at Birmingham’s (UAB) Altec/Styslinger Genomic Medicine and Data Sciences Building (ALGEN) is the product of a down-to-the-concrete renovation that transformed an aging, nondescript health sciences research facility into a modern, light-filled home to seven floors of four different dry lab phenotypes. The building is topped by an executive floor that, for the first time, brings together key leadership of the university’s health system and Heersink School of Medicine (HSOM). Fresh glazing on an expanse stretching over a busy downtown street creates a striking double helix pattern that telegraphs the building’s mission. A newly constructed conference center adjoins the renovated structure.
An overall trend toward lower admission rates, paired with a rise in online learning, is leading many universities to question whether they are carrying excess classroom and research space. Undergraduate enrollment at U.S. universities fell by almost 15% between 2012 and 2022, and studies suggest that this number could continue to drop each year by as much as 100,000, perhaps more if international students do not return to U.S.-based programs. A study published by Inside Higher Education states that “if the U.S. lost 15% of its international student population, a substantial number of colleges could experience financial repercussions.” The actual number is higher. Using 2022 enrollment statistics, Vermeulens, a construction economist firm, estimates that as much as 38 million sf of existing higher ed academic classroom and lab space could be unnecessary or would be better off repurposed.
To maximize scientific synergies and encourage innovation, The Sherwin-Williams Company made the decision to combine two of its largest R&D organizations into a new global R&D center in Brecksville, Ohio. The 600,000-sf facility, named the Morikis Global Technology Center, began hosting some 900 Sherwin-Williams employees—including chemists, engineers, technicians, and support teams—upon opening in December 2025. One of the big goals is to take people from disparate business units that have been historically scattered across multiple buildings and bring them together into a space designed to maximize collaboration and spark creativity.
In a higher education landscape facing shifting enrollment trends, rising costs, and an uncertain future, institutions must rethink how they use their physical spaces—not just as real estate, but as engines of purpose. And rather than traditional return on investment (ROI), they should employ “Return on Mission” to evaluate their success rather than metrics like net-to-gross ratios, utilization rates, and physical occupancy to assess their spaces. Relying solely on ROI falls short of capturing what truly matters: the activity inside the space and the value it generates.
Hybrid workplace strategies continue to make headlines, as some high-profile companies are requiring all employees to return to the office five days a week. Many other companies, such as Stantec, a global architectural engineering firm, continue to embrace the hybrid approach, giving employees the flexibility to work remotely part of the week while fostering in-person collaboration during designated office days. Stantec initially adopted this hybrid approach due to pandemic restrictions, but, after seeing the collaborative and financial benefits, decided to maintain their commitment to supporting hybrid work environments.
The Oregon State University College of Engineering is embarking on a transformative journey to optimize space, enhance research capacity, and create a cohesive environment for students and faculty. Through strategic planning, innovative redesigns, and an emphasis on community engagement, OSU is redefining how legacy buildings can serve modern needs without massive new construction. A major focus of the 10-year plan centers on the university’s “engineering triangle,” a cluster of historic buildings dedicated to engineering research and education. These century-old buildings, while rich in history, are in desperate need of modernization to support the university’s cutting-edge research. While previous years have seen new construction, the next phase will focus on preserving and enhancing existing spaces.
It’s no secret that many healthcare organizations are struggling to attract and keep enough staff to look after their patients. New space plans are offering solutions to the staffing challenge that increase healthcare worker satisfaction and success by making it easier for them to do their job. Not all staffing considerations are building-related, but there are many ways the building can work to help doctors, nurses, therapists, and aides do their jobs more effectively while maintaining their own physical and mental health. That balance is attractive to healthcare workers.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic concept; it’s a transformative force actively reshaping how research is conducted, how buildings are designed, and how energy is consumed. From self-driving labs—defined as laboratories where scientific systems can autonomously perform multiple cycles of the scientific method—to smart energy systems, AI is ushering in a new era of efficiency, collaboration, and complexity. This shift was evident in a series of think tank sessions hosted by SmithGroup’s Science & Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and Energy Advisory Board, where leaders from academia, private industry, the energy sector, design, engineering and planning explored the rapid evolution of AI and its impact on research environments. In just six months between sessions, the pace of change was striking: Half of the experts expressed openness to selective technological enhancements, an idea nearly all had rejected earlier. This growing acceptance signals a more tangible AI-driven future, though strategies around governance and energy are still emerging. The following report offers insights into how AI is transforming research ecosystems, the energy infrastructure needed to support this growth, and the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Academic STEM facilities need the flexibility to accommodate an expanding range of disciplines and pedagogical methods while equipped with an adaptable infrastructure responsive to occupancy shifts and technology advances. Today’s projects often span the complexity spectrum, from soft spaces and graduate student workstations outside the lab to a zero-point energy (ZPE) environment for quantum physics research or an engineering lab housing a wind tunnel. While the terms “flexibility” and “adaptability” are often used interchangeably to describe the requirements of a lab building, planners at Research Facilities Design (RFD) draw a clear distinction between the two. In their context, flexibility is what occurs below the ceiling, for example, movable casework that allows a lab to accommodate new equipment or new research opportunities. Adaptability refers to what happens above the ceiling, such as robust MEP systems, well-organized ductwork and piping racks, and spare capacity at the electrical panel to support new or expanded programs in the building.
In an era of expanding research portfolios and heightened expectations for interdisciplinary collaboration, universities face intensifying pressure to strategically plan, manage, and optimize research space. Research facilities, wet labs, maker spaces, core facilities, and computational suites, represent some of the most limited and costly assets in the academic environment. As competition for high-quality laboratories and specialized rooms grows, institutions are re-evaluating entrenched practices, strengthening policy frameworks, and adopting data-driven systems to ensure that space is allocated efficiently, transparently, and equitably. The most successful universities treat research space not as a static inheritance but as a strategic resource that must evolve with the institution’s mission.
More and more universities are building their scientific research centers around cores of huge, heavy, yet surprisingly delicate equipment. Building a core laboratory facility forces architects and campus planners to think about logistics, timing, and backup systems to a level of detail probably more familiar to NASA engineers than institutional architects. As the team behind Emory University’s new Health Sciences Research Building II (HSRB-II) learned, a huge range of factors—in their case, everything from the amount of rebar in the flooring to the width of the corridors to shipping velocity on the Suez Canal—must be reckoned with before such a facility is completed.
In both the public and private sector, the pendulum has swung away from remote work, and many leaders want their employees to come back to the office more days per week. While good workplace design can help make workplaces commute-worthy, the success of any return-to-office strategy depends on a mix of operational protocols and design decisions, says Kay Sargent, director of thought leadership, interiors, at global design, architecture, engineering and planning firm HOK.
Workplace occupancy planning used to be straightforward: People were assigned to an office, cubicle, or facility, and that is where they worked. Not so in the current hybrid work world. Traditional space and occupancy techniques are struggling to handle the complexity of today’s diverse facility use patterns. And increased pressure and regulations related to sustainability and energy usage only add to the challenge. However, AI is beginning to transform space and occupancy planning.
