|
Fig. 1. Renovation schedule for the Searle Chemistry Laboratory at the Univ. of Chicago.
|
Many science building owners and institutions reject full-building renovation options out of hand. The conventional wisdom is that it is just as (if not more) expensive than new construction and logistically more challenging. The specter of trying to phase a renovation without disrupting research is one that often strikes fear in the hearts of even the most seasoned facilities professionals.
Many science building owners and institutions reject full-building renovation options out of hand. The conventional wisdom is that it is just as (if not more) expensive than new construction and logistically more challenging. The specter of trying to phase a renovation without disrupting research is one that often strikes fear in the hearts of even the most seasoned facilities professionals.
Many science building owners and institutions reject full-building renovation options out of hand. The conventional wisdom is that it is just as (if not more) expensive than new construction and logistically more challenging. The specter of trying to phase a renovation without disrupting research is one that often strikes fear in the hearts of even the most seasoned facilities professionals.
Talk about a bad rap. As leading institutions such as the Univ. of Chicago and Brown Univ. have found, if a project can be crafted and staged to take unnecessary cost and complexity out of the equation, renovation not only becomes an option, it almost becomes an obligation. Indeed, when it comes to speed, sustainability and cost savings, renovation can be the best way out of a facilities jam. This article offers five ways of re-thinking renovation to achieve faster, greener, less-expensive results.
1. Don’t spend money on people sitting in trailers—On a recent bid summary, the General Conditions for a 100,000-ft2 science project totaled $200,000 per month. Most of this $4.8 million expense covered the salaries and benefits of project managers, field engineers and other on-site staff, plus the cost of trailers, office equipment and utilities required to support them for two years.
On a phased renovation project, this expenditure can extend months longer than on new construction, contributing to the commonly-held notion that renovation is more expensive than new construction. But if a renovation project can be done in a single phase, the same logic works to the project’s benefit. By taking advantage of the existing structure and envelope and eliminating the need to prep the site, lay foundations, and erect the superstructure and enclosure, an institution can save nine to 12 months on a single-phase renovation vs. a new construction project. This shortened schedule could cut the General Conditions in half and yield a $2 million savings in salaries and trailer rental costs alone. (See Fig. 1, above.)
2. Getting to a single-phase renovation—A phased renovation adds millions of dollars to a budget but adds no value to the completed project. These millions come from the extended General Conditions and from the cost of creating temporary measures to ensure life safety, access and continuity of services to the occupied areas. In this context, it is worth spending $1 million to $2 million on swing space to save $7 million to $8 million on the actual project. At first glance, swing space can be hard to find, so a creative and flexible approach is needed. We recommend the following:
- Don’t expect the swing space to be ideal. Be prepared to accept loss of contiguity and adjacency for a finite, short period of time.
- Don’t expect the swing space to be the perfect size. Compression often is a necessary compromise.
- Convert under-utilized spaces to swing space. Library stacks within lab buildings and semester-dependent teaching labs often can be consolidated to free up space.
- Time your renovation to coincide with the end of new construction projects for optimal swing space opportunity.
- Consider leasing space from local companies or adjacent institutions.
- Don’t rule out the possibility of taking space from other departments and divisions.
3. There’s gold in them thar walls—In addition to time savings, there is real value in the infrastructure already in place before renovation. In new construction, site development, foundations, structure, and exterior skin have a combined value of approximately $100/sf. By viewing existing infrastructure as valuable rather than obsolete, a creative owner can revive a building for a second life at a more reasonable cost than that of a new construction project.
Faced with the question of whether to demolish or renovate its Searle Chemistry Laboratory, a 90,000-ft2 building from the late 1960s, the Univ. of Chicago determined that a shorter schedule made possible by swing space opportunities, combined with the latent value of the building’s limestone exterior and robust concrete structure, could yield a faster result at a fraction of the cost of a new building (15 months/$32 million vs. an estimated 24 months/$50 million for new construction). Critical to the cost savings was a $1 million compression and relocation project for three faculty members and for core instrumentation that allowed for a single phase of renovation. One faculty member was accommodated in the recently completed Gordon Center for Integrated Sciences nearby, through a temporary compression strategy applied to the entire chemistry faculty. The other two investigators and the core instrumentation suite of mass spec, x-ray diffraction and NMR were accommodated in renovations to the adjacent Jones Laboratory (Fig. 2, below).
One of the problems inherent to the original Searle envelope design was that it formed a 200-ft barrier between the traditional quadrangles and the westward expansion of the campus. A key component of the renovation was to introduce a new pass-through entry into the midblock of the building that created a major campus connection from east to west. While preserving the majority of the envelope, the design team also trained a critical eye on the inadequacies of the original building. Using renovation as an opportunity to correct the shortcomings caused by a previous era of poor planning is an effective technique for leveraging the renovation to enhance broader campus design issues.
|
Fig. 2. Needed chemistry lab renovations also offered an opportunity to correct circulation issues at the Univ. of Chicago.
|
4. Turn your constraints into assets—Another technique employed by the Univ. of Chicago was to take advantage of existing constraints. The electrical system of the building provided one such opportunity. An existing electrical vault in an adjacent building fed the Searle Building and had a limited amount of capacity. Rather than assuming a full upgrade of the electrical service, the design engineer identified a set amount of power capacity for plug load once the MEP core load was established. The architects then worked with the user group to ensure that the equipment and plug layouts in the lab fit within the limitation. This reverse-engineering to a target goal avoided a costly expense that would ordinarily be required with a less-thorough analysis of need.
5. Get into the zone—Most renovation projects involve sub-optimal buildings with numerous deficiencies, and do not have the broad flexibility of contemporary lab design. By identifying the zones of capability and locating functions appropriately, institutions can work with what they have rather than spend time and money creating new perfect locations.
A recent adaptive reuse project for Brown Univ. provides an excellent illustration of this principle. For details, see the expanded edition at www.labdesignnews.com/october2009.
In conclusion, when selling your renovation idea to colleagues who may be skeptical of the cost benefit of renovation, keep in mind the following points:
- Plan on spending money and time on swing space to achieve a single-phase project.
- Remember that the work spent on creating swing space has retained value beyond the project duration.
- Assume a 9 to12 month time savings over new construction. Calculate both General Conditions savings as well as reduced escalation costs.
- Develop a realistic budget that includes contingencies for time as well as cost, and develop a schedule with specific milestones to avoid extended work.
- Calculate the value of work-in-place that will be retained.
- Be creative about matching your program to the unique qualities of your building.
- Use the renovation to repair damage done by poor planning from the past. Open up new connections and create stronger relationships between the building and the site.
- Don’t force the program where it doesn’t fit.
- Renovation is inherently more sustainable than new construction.
With careful planning and strategic thinking, you can make your next renovation project an experience your institution will remember—for all the right reasons. So, take a deep breath, take the long view, and jump in.
Mark Reed is a principal/VP and Erik Mollo-Christensen is a principal with Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, an architecture, planning and interior design firm located in Cambridge, Mass. (www.tka-architects.com). While a principal at Wilson Architects, Boston, Reed led the renovation of the Searle Chemistry Laboratory at the Univ. of Chicago.
