The technology-driven ability to work virtually from anywhere at any time is changing the way workspace is designed and utilized. The growing practice of allowing employees to work from remote locations means as much as 50 percent of total office workspace could be unoccupied at any given time, resulting in wasted money in leasing and operating costs.
The University of North Dakota’s new School of Medicine and Health Sciences building in Grand Forks transforms medical and health sciences education in the state by creating a shared, collaborative learning environment, collocating for the first time the programs of medicine, basic science, medical lab science, physician assistant, sports medicine, public health, and occupational and physical therapy.
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals’ new home in Cambridge, Mass., has 40,000 sf of high-tech biology and chemistry labs, along with four distinct space types to accommodate the work modes of its staff: focus, collaboration, learning, and social engagement. The new 130,000-rentable-square-foot headquarters, known by its address, 125 Binney Street, in the heart of the Kendall Square life science community, stands in marked contrast to the company’s existing facility, less than two miles away.
The new 320,000-sf Knight Cancer Institute research building currently being built by Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) on the south waterfront in Portland, Ore., will maximize scientific collaboration for more than 500 researchers through the use of flexible floorplans, shared equipment cores, and new ratio configurations for wet and dry lab space.
Organizations of all types are using location-based social media data and other user-generated information to improve workspace design and functionality. By researching occupancy data, user satisfaction ratings, and other metrics, facility designers are finding smarter ways to lower costs and create efficiencies. While some organizations mine existing trace data automatically generated by mobile devices and building management systems, others are developing customized platforms dedicated to capturing key information.
Designers of undergraduate engineering learning environments must draw from a broad range of solutions to meet the specific pedagogical needs of each institution, beyond the traditional “wet” or “dry” designation of basic science teaching labs. In addition to designing for appropriate equipment scale, strategies include pairing labs and teaching space, providing a variety of maker or innovation spaces, building fewer two-story high-bay areas, and using scaled options for airflow and ventilation.
The expansion of interdisciplinary research to include an engineering component is changing the space model for academic institutions. Science facilities had already broken new ground when they blended various branches of life and physical sciences together under one roof. Adding engineering to the mix has triggered fresh thinking about a host of design standards, ranging from lab-to-lab-support ratios to building organization to the configuration of office and collaboration spaces.
The North American headquarters for EF Education First, located in the former industrial North Point area of Cambridge, serves as a modern case study of an open office workspace. Designed to house more than 1,000 employees in a completely open environment, the 300,000-sf, 10-floor office building features pod-style team zones separated by a variety of lounges, meeting rooms, private Skype™ rooms, and large community spaces, including a café, activity rooms, and an onsite restaurant bar for socializing after work.
When the administrators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) realized their space needs were growing faster than their existing buildings could accommodate, they did something unconventional: They approached the problem as a research project. Beginning in 2012, they analyzed their clinical research space needs, reviewed their available real estate, and visited other research facilities to observe best practices.
With a portfolio of 23 research buildings ranging from 30,000 gsf to almost 800,000 gsf, the research portfolio of the University of Texas MD Anderson Center in Houston covers nearly 4.5 million gsf. Despite bringing 11 of those buildings online in the past 15 years—nearly one building per year—the researchers at MD Anderson were left wondering why, even with all those facilities, there did not seem to be enough space. This was partially due to unprecedented growth, now with close to 22,000 employees, but that didn’t fully account for the problem.
Retrofit or renovate? It’s a common question facing many owners of laboratory facilities built in the 1970s, and the answer isn’t always obvious. A simple retrofit of building systems can improve reliability and cut energy consumption significantly, but a gut renovation can be transformative by enhancing performance and providing associated benefits in recruitment and retention, quality of life, and scientific productivity––benefits that can more than offset the higher initial cost.
Leading-edge interdisciplinary facilities like the New Jersey Institute for Food, Nutrition and Health (IFNH) at Rutgers University, as well as facilities in Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., are transforming academic research culture through the use of open building designs that foster cross-discipline collaborations and “emergent outcomes.” This approach to culture-driven facility design is also being successfully deployed at other universities across the country in an effort to improve the way research institutes operate and compete for grants and contracts.
Tufts Institute for Innovation (TII), a health sciences research institute, strives to revolutionize scientific inquiry with a new model for research that will reimagine laboratory practice and accelerate human health breakthroughs. Inside the labs, researchers share space and equipment in an open, collaborative, team-like environment that exemplifies the TII mission, while also generating cost efficiency.
Space allocation can be a political minefield, but Stony Brook University School of Medicine (SBM) is changing that paradigm. Old-style backroom negotiations are being replaced with a wholly transparent decision-making approach that utilizes information technology to democratize space allocation and provide department chairs with an unprecedented wealth of information about their space and staffing, past, present, and future.
The University of Saskatchewan has renovated and modernized its health sciences education and research facilities to accommodate shared operations, space, and technology, using change management strategies to help faculty, staff, and students move from silos to a team-based model. The transformation incorporates institutional, as well as physical, changes, including restructuring established administrative processes and hierarchies.
