The Project: Harvard Univ., Northwest Science Building, Cambridge, Mass. 530,000 ft
2 multidisciplinary research facility. Budget: n.a..
This project was named High Honors winner in the 2009 Lab of the Year competition for overall excellence in design. The facility is also the recipient of a 2008 Chicago Athenaeum American Architecture Award, and a 2009 Merit Award from the Northern California chapter of the International Interior Design Assn.
The Team: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, San Francisco (architect); Jacobs Consultancy/GPR Planners Collaborative, Purchase, N.Y. (lab consultant); Bard, Rao + Athanas, Boston (MEP engineer); Fluor, town (program manager); Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates Inc., Cambridge (landscape architect); Bond Bros., Everett, Mass. (contractor).
The Users: The Northwest Science Building emphasizes collaborative learning and cross-disciplinary research in diverse fields, including neurosciences, bioengineering, systems biology and computational biology. It also includes teaching facilities, comparative zoology and herbaria collections, and two levels of specialty research support facilities.
The Schedule: Construction commenced in spring 2005; the building was occupied in fall 2008. The Goals: Harvard wanted a collaborative interdisciplinary facility that made the best use possible of the last piece of under-utilized land on campus, an oddly shaped parcel with a semi-industrial character and Cold-War-era buildings. The new facility was designed to be a link among existing facilities; the quiet, adjacent residential neighborhood; and an existing underground garage, which needed to remain open during construction.
 |
| The south façade of the Northwest Science Building defines a new South Yard, equipped with low landscape furniture. The yard is a green roof over extensive basement levels, with skylights bringing daylight into the underground areas. Photo: Timothy Hursley |
The client wanted a cost-effective project that was constructed fairly quickly, was efficient to operate, and met shifting needs of the faculty and students who would use the building. A highly flexible lab design was required, given the anticipated nature of the research. Harvard wanted to maximize the amount of usable square footage on the site, since space on campus was already at such a premium. The building also needed to help define and set the tone for two new quads envisioned for this end of the campus once other existing buildings are scrapped.
The Solutions: Accommodating more than half a million ft
2 of space was a process that required both creative design and sensitive community relations. Local residents were worried about the effect a massive building would have on the scale of the neighborhood, which is characterized by low-rise single-family homes. The ultimate solution places more than half the total square footage of the facility below grade, and incorporates three functioning green roofs. Placing much of the structure underground also allowed creation of ultra-low-vibration space for sensitive imaging equipment, and produced sustainability benefits by reducing material use and energy consumption.
 |
| This stacking diagram shows the complexity of the building programming, with teaching and support spaces belowground and lab space in three aboveground floors. Plan: SOM |
Airy, daylit stairwells make it easy to get around the building. Multiple building entries and circulation pathways encourage students to pass through the building in route to other facilities. (For more about how the facility interfaces with the surrounding buildings, see the expanded edition at
www.labdesignnews.com/may2009.)
Underground, the irregularly shaped building footprint encompasses four basement levels, with the highest one lit by skylights that punctuate the “green roof” at ground level. The four aboveground stories comprise a pair of rectangular wings joined at a central hub. A massive stair at the hub point connects researchers and students on five levels of the building.
In general, the belowground spaces consist of support zones and pedagogical spaces, including a pair of large auditoriums and nine seminar rooms. An open interaction zone at the central point is skylit and furnished with soft, lightweight furniture, making it versatile for impromptu and scheduled gatherings. The ground floor includes about 10,000 ft
2 of undergraduate teaching labs, plus food services and primary circulation space establishing campus pathways through the facility.
The upper three levels are devoted to laboratory space, primarily organized as large, open, generic or loft-style labs, paired with a central “spine” or support zone at the center of each lab wing that offers about a 1:1 ratio between labs and support. Office space is across the support zone on the other side of a corridor, punctuated with two-story “living rooms” that provide space for informal interaction.
The living rooms feature soft seating, food service, operable windows, and balconies. Adjacent meeting rooms and breakout space are equipped with sliding panels to create flexibility for user groups. (The programming diagram on page 6, and the floorplan above, give a more detailed breakdown of building organization.)
 |
| The open labs feature flexible benches that offer scientists the freedom to raise and lower their workspace and plug in along the entire length of the bench. Photo: Anton Grassl/Esto |
The Highlights: Keeping the building viable for diverse user groups, over the long term, was a key client goal. The central support spine in the lab wings houses flexible MEP systems, leaving bench areas and office zones free of columns and vertical penetrations.
Instead of designing the entire building for the “worst-case scenario” (for instance, synthetic chemistry), the team asked the client to designate the maximum anticipated infrastructure needs for the various sciences in the facility, including neuroscience, bioengineering, physics, chemistry and computational. The resulting percentages and diversity predictions were used to size the MEP system and vertical distribution of utilities. Any science can now be accommodated virtually anywhere in the building, except for BSL-3 work, as long as the total facility does not exceed maximum capacity. Dry (office and computational) space have a segregated mechanical system, improving energy efficiency. Offices have operable windows, reducing energy demand.
 |
| The open labs feature flexible benches that offer scientists the freedom to raise and lower their workspace and plug in along the entire length of the bench. Photo: Anton Grassl/Esto |
Though LEED certification was not sought, the building embodies multiple sustainable strategies. As previously mentioned, situating so much of the facility underground was an inherently sustainable choice because it reduced the required building materials. Air intakes were placed at the basement level, limiting the building height. Glazing is high-performance glass, and a high-reflectivity roof was chosen to mitigate heat loads. Brick was locally sourced.
The facades of the building form a dialogue with surrounding facilities while also setting the town for proposed future construction. Recessed windows separated by piers of local brick comprise the facade on the west (lab) side, harmonious with adjacent structures. The office facades at the east and south feature floor-to-ceiling glass with wood shades to mitigate glare. A generous amount of pucte, a tropical wood that weathers attractively with age, accents the façade and continues into the facility, mitigating the visual coolness of many exposed concrete surfaces.
The new “South Yard” created at the south end of the facility by the green roof is punctuated with low landscape furniture, making it a popular gathering space. The ground floor at this end of the building includes a café with large doors that can be opened to the Yard, creating a large indoor-outdoor space.
 |
| Skylit from the green roof above, the central space at the first basement level is equipped with comfortable, lightweight furniture. Photo: Timothy Hursley |
The Results: Lab of the Year judges thought the building represented a particularly innovative solution to a complex challenge. "The building solution is a blend of interior and exterior forces coming together,” says judge Steve Hackman, AIA, principal at SmithGroup, Phoenix. “The large program fits creatively into the site while anticipating contextual goals of the campus at every angle and elevation."
Sharalee M. Field, senior planner for the sciences at Harvard, says the building accomplished the client’s goals and has been a success with users. “The principal investigators and their research groups are happy and productive in their new laboratories, and the collaborative spaces in the building have begun to enable cross-disciplinary dialogue among the researchers.”
The Contact: Carrie Byles, AIA, LEED AP, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, 415-352-5856, carrie.byles@som.com
Published in Laboratory Design: Vol. 14, No. 5, May 2009
