Microvivaria—customized, small-scale animal research environments, built within an existing building or as new construction—are a good option when research needs dictate a smaller, more focused facility; when a location is not viable for, or proximate to, a full-scale vivarium; or when speed to uptime is key.
Workspace planners are often asked to design to a 10-to-20-year time horizon, but the more rapidly technology advances, the harder this becomes. And it’s not just the hardware, software, and work tasks that are going to change, says Kay Sargent, director of workplace strategies at Lendlease. It’s also the workers themselves. Science shows that workers’ brains are going to work differently in 20 years, says Sargent, and companies need to start planning for this now, or pay the price.
Research confirms that active and engaging university classrooms improve learning outcomes, but what features produce the most positive—and cost-effective—results? Surprisingly, perhaps, advanced technology is not nearly as high on the list of success factors as whiteboards, flexible furniture, and other space-related amenities.
With many biomedical organizations considering consolidating research equipment into core facilities, “renovate to innovate” should be a guiding principle, according to professionals from DPR Construction and Gensler. The design for a recent renovation undertaken at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Fla.—the Shared Resource Center—evolved to support the translational research that is Moffitt’s focus, not only by collocating vital instrumentation, but also by building in modularity and providing a literal “window” to view active research.
A remarkable evolution in the tools and methods of research is driving a host of trends in laboratory planning and design, including fewer permanently assigned offices, a decided prioritization of computational over “wet” space, and an emphasis on core facilities and shared equipment, according to a survey of research organizations and A/E/C firms conducted by Tradeline.
In the largest higher education restructuring in the nation’s history, the facilities group at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, was elevated to a leadership role, taking its place alongside the offices of finance and research as part of an administrative troika whose heads now report directly to the president. The strategic alignment among these three functions was instrumental in allowing Rutgers to meet a legislative mandate that saw the university grow to 27 million sf in 1,009 buildings with a $3.7 billion operating budget and five different campuses in less than a year.
Faced with aging buildings, decreased national funding, no buildable space on the urban campus, plus new research grants that required additional lab and bench space, and a medical school reorganization to consolidate eight basic science departments to four while adding two department chairs and eight principal investigators, Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM) introduced an initiative to reclaim and reallocate available research space without new construction.
Today’s high-performance laboratories can be categorized into three different “platforms,” or core facilities, each with a unique set of metrics and key features that set them apart in terms of productivity, ability to support emerging programs, and economy of operation (both capital and energy). Understanding the distinguishing features can increase productivity and operator efficiency, and ensure the proper investments for future flexibility and adaptability.
The renewed emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education has forced colleges and universities to develop more project-based learning spaces, but critical details need to be addressed in order to maximize the success of the five basic lab types found in great STEM facilities, according to architects with EYP Architecture & Engineering.
The Shared Resource Center, which will provide new lab space for four existing core facilities at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Fla., is nearing completion with substantial buy-in from staff, despite a sometimes challenging consensus-building process, according to Moffitt’s Christine O’Connell, senior director of laboratory research operations and Susan Constable, manager of shared resources.
The phrase “lab of the future” typically refers to a flexible, open floorplan designed to promote collaboration and cross-pollination between researchers. But these buzzwords have been used for decades, with open labs dating back to the mid-’60s and flexible casework to the mid-’80s. So how successful have these features been, and what defines the lab of the future in 2015 and beyond?
Diverse projects in New York, New Jersey, and Maryland demonstrate that integrating flexible infrastructure, collaborative work styles, daylight, and sustainability all contribute to a “health-positive” scientific research environment, a concept derived from neurological and behavioral research indicating that access to natural light and human interaction improve well-being and productivity.
A new master space plan for the University of Texas at Austin’s College of Natural Sciences leverages program adjacencies and shared infrastructure to improve collaborative interdisciplinary research while maximizing space use. This “soft growth” renovation approach allows the college to increase capacity and improve efficiency without demolishing or adding new buildings.
Paying a premium for the flexibility to remain truly generic can be both expensive and counterproductive to lab design goals, say the designers of the Wisconsin Institutes of Medical Research (WIMR) multi-phase project at the University of Wisconsin (UW). Instead, they increased space efficiency and density by walking a fine line between custom and generic lab design, with a modular framework that met certain parameters but could be adapted to the science conducted within the spaces.
To address space utilization and efficiency, especially in a research environment, the best way to make a case for change is with solid data that makes a compelling link to mission effectiveness, but institutions warehouse vast amounts of data that are often left untapped, says Donn Williams, director of facilities and real estate at RAND Corporation.
