Laboratory design has evolved a great deal since its beginnings. From brick buildings filled with small closed rooms, to towers whose facades sparkle with high-tech glass, filled with modular and flexible labs—design continues to evolve. Though buildings change, the fundamental questions remain the same: what objectives drive lab design, how can these objectives be achieved, and what is the price of that achievement?
R&D Magazine recently surveyed readers of both R&D and its sister publication Laboratory Design newsletter (LDN), to discover what trends they are seeing in lab design, and what they would like the lab of the future to look like.
Many of the LDN survey respondents work as architect/planners (26%), closely followed by engineers (20%). Client-side respondents, including research and facilities managers, principal investigators, and other research or administrative positions, made up 36% of the respondent group. More than a third of the LDN respondents (36%) work within the architecture, engineering construction, and planning sectors; 24% are employed in academia; 18% in government labs; and 14% in private-sector firms or research institutes.
Forty-four percent of the respondents are involved in designing labs on a contract basis for clients; 25% assist in design for their organizations’ internal projects; and 42% recommend features to lab designers. This survey group provided the editors with answers that are clearly knowledgeable regarding trends in both lab design and architecture.
Many of the respondents from the R&D Magazine group—which received a similar but not identical survey—work as professional staff members (30%), closely followed by lab directors or managers (15%). These respondents mainly work in academic settings; however, government labs, aerospace, and chemicals/petroleum were also highly represented. 62% of the respondents drawn from the R&D subscriber list work in laboratories that deal with applied research, and with these stats, the editors were able to gain a good perspective regarding users’ wants and needs.
Economic downturn rears its head
Despite variations among work titles, industry sectors, and even involvement in laboratory design, all respondents seem to agree on one thing: the effect of the global recession on the lab construction market.
“The lab design industry has been affected tremendously due to the poor economy,” states Montana-based lab planner Richard Rietz. “The capital spending has really fallen off. And, the work, or the staffing, is down around 25%.”
About 62% of the LDN survey respondents saw projects being canceled, 76% saw projects being delayed or postponed, and 63% saw projects being scaled back due to the economic downturn. 60% of the respondents said stimulus funding has had little impact on project starts for their organizations; only 11% saw a significant stimulus impact.
To get a better idea of how the market looks from the client side, we asked the R&D respondents about their plans for facility changes for the next three years. 38% of these respondents anticipate minimal renovations, such as new furnishings. About 10% expect more major renovations (for instance, floorplan reconfiguration or new mechanical systems). Another 10% expect their organizations to create new buildings, but 34% plan no changes at all. Nevertheless, nearly three quarters of the R&D respondents say their buildings need some updates, whether small or major—and about 20% of these characterize their labs as “antiquated.” The editors don’t know whether the recession is the primary reason organizations are holding off on major renovations or construction; however, the respondents affirmed that cost is a huge factor in the upgrades they will undertake in the next few years.
In fact, respondents from R&D said cost efficiency—both first costs/capital costs (58%) and life-cycle costs (68%)— is very important to their lab environment. It’s encouraging to see client-side recognition of the importance of long-term costs.
While many organizations are hesitant to move ahead with new building projects in this economic climate, the downturn has apparently spurred one key trend: demand for greener options. “The economic downturn has increased demand for sustainable labs, but has limited demand for labs overall. Organizations are much more in tune with cost- and energy-efficiency as a result of the new economic reality,” says Mark Reed, AIA, LEED AP, principal/VP of the architecture firm Tsoi/ Kobus & Associates, Cambridge, Mass.
Some industry insiders do expect brighter times soon. Rietz says, “I see the industry bouncing back. I see projects that were postponed in late ’08 or early ’09 that are coming back.” However, the rate at which the market will rebound is unknown. Clearly, cost- and energy-efficient labs will continue to be a priority in such an economic climate.
Sustainability takes center stage
The LDN survey shows that 70% of the respondents viewed sustainability within laboratory design as a positive trend over the past three years—with only 11% citing it as a negative trend. 72% of LDN respondents also indicated their clients see sustainable features as a “high” or “moderate” priority for new building or renovation projects, with only 27% claiming that it is a low or unmentioned priority. 75% of the respondents rated energy-efficiency requirements as a positive trend as well, with only 15% viewing it as a negative trend.
The respondents from R&D Magazine said that, if they had no budget constraints, they would place a “high” priority on energy-efficient HVAC (47%) and lighting (53%). These user-side respondents also rated energy-efficient systems (52%) as “very important” features in any lab environment.
Alternative energy systems (66%) and alternative building materials (58%) were viewed as “very” or “somewhat” important for labs by the respondents of R&D Magazine. The respondents from LDN believe even more strongly that they represent a positive trend in laboratory design (76%). LDN respondents said they’ve seen significant improvements in advanced energy systems during the past 10 years (44%), and that over 70% of their clients now see these features as a “high” or “moderate” priority in projects. In other words, sustainability is hot, wanted, and needed.
According to Reed, “Sustainability is becoming an expectation rather than an aspiration.” Such an expectation brings the need to be open-minded and experimental regarding new technologies that may not have been tried in laboratories before.
Some labs shy away from “green building” because they fear it will be significantly more expensive than conventional building design. However, Vicki David, AIA, VP/director of laboratory design at the architecture firm Leo A Daly, Denver, states, “Green building doesn’t cost significantly more money than conventional building. The reality is that a well-designed, well-built, energy-efficient and properly oriented building consuming 50% less energy than a so-called ‘standard’ building, tends to cost 10 to 20% more money to build.” Others who have studied the issues say the premium for green design could be even lower. In the end, the payback for having an energy-efficient building typically greatly exceeds the front-end costs.
As design firms continue to push the envelope in sustainability, front-end costs might rise, says David. “It is not unreasonable to think that carbon-neutral buildings may cost more. Almost everything better costs more money, and achieving carbon-neutral energy status,” or for that matter, any sustainable status, “involves solar panels, new PV technologies, wind turbines, geothermal systems, and many other compelling technologies. In short, there needs to be a change in how we define ‘the cost of construction.’”
Some examples of current features found in sustainable laboratories are daylighting (often encompassing sensors and high-tech windows), energy recovery systems, recycled and locally sourced building materials, high-performance and/or ductless fume hoods, green roofs, alternative plumbing sources (such as recycled “gray water”), and photovoltaic systems on rooftops or overhangs. “Green” chemistry and just-in-time delivery strategies are changing the way hazardous materials are used and disposed-of, reducing buildings’ environmental footprint. Energy modeling, electrical metering and air-quality monitoring (sometimes linked to ventilation control) are also playing an increasingly large role in creating and maintaining a sustainable lab.
“The whole discipline of energy modeling has really encouraged the rethinking of standard room air change rates because so much depends on room use, configuration, hazard evaluation, risk mitigation and chemical use—task ventilation vs. whole room ventilation,” says David. “Demand control ventilation is made possible by advances in environmental control systems. There is also a trend toward making rooms controllable by the occupants according to room usage.”
The great LEED debate
Accompanying the positive trend toward lab sustainability is the issue of whether projects need to be LEED-certified (or certified by some sustainability guideline). 52% of the LDN survey respondents felt that LEED (or alternative) certification has been a positive trend during the past three years; 15% believe it has been a negative trend; the remainder haven’t seen much impact one way or the other. The respondents said clients view LEED certification as a “moderate” (37.5%) or “high” (30%) priority.
Though these survey results indicate that most lab design professionals view the LEED system as a positive trend, some others view it as imperfect at best. Lab planner Richard Reitz says, “We should abandon the LEED system of point counting for Silver and Gold buildings and move to actually counting energy use in laboratories.” He alluded to Labs 21 and its Environmental Performance Criteria as heading in a direction based on actual evidence, rather than a system where projects can gain points for sending people to conferences or having staff become LEED-accredited.
Reitz continues, “You can even get points for recycling your garbage and installing low-flow urinals.” Such points may not represent energy savings, though they might make a contribution to overall project sustainability. Whatever its perceived flaws, LEED is well-entrenched throughout the construction industry, and alternative methods for assessment might have a tough time gaining traction.
Siding with Reitz, perhaps, are the readers of R&D Magazine. Only about 8% of those planning major facility changes said they expected to seek LEED certification; about 7% said they would use a different guideline, whether that is internal, a state program, the Labs 21 Environmental Performance Criteria, ASHRAE standards or something else. 30% said flatly that they don’t expect to use any sustainability guidelines. But 55% aren’t sure what they will do.
The reason for clients’ wariness is unknown, though perceptions of cost may be a factor. Architect Victoria David states, “Our clients want to spend as little as possible, while they embrace sustainability, they don’t want to spend the extra money for LEED certification.”
Some clients may be unsure how certification would dovetail with regulatory needs, such as FDA stipulations; others may be embracing the general notion of “green” but not the idea of third-party verification. Given the enthusiasm of people on the design side and the uncertainty of people on the client side, this is a topic that will clearly require thorough discussions during the planning process for any lab construction or renovation job.
While the debate over sustainability certification will continue, “green” laboratories are undeniably becoming more and more prominent. And the idea of flexible, transparent laboratories that nurture interaction is also becoming the norm.
Into the light
Once most researchers were sequestered in private (and often dim) rooms crowded with fixed furniture. Today’s labs have embraced more open, transparent and flexible plans, which can lead to many benefits including the most sought after: collaboration.
“Making buildings transparent [is one of the most important recent trends] in laboratory design,” says Rietz. “By making laboratories transparent, people can actually look in and at the laboratory and see the science in action.”
Allowing people to see into laboratories, especially in academic buildings and government labs, could give the public an incentive to become more involved in whatever form of science is being done there. Showcasing science enhances public knowledge and appreciation for an organization’s mission and work.
Transparency also benefits lab users. Internal glazing allows researchers to keep an eye on their own work and that of their neighbors when they are not actually inside the lab. Such visibility enhances creativity and collaboration among scientists. In addition, transparent or translucent windows and walls promote the penetration of daylight deep into a building, with positive effects on mood and morale.
45% and 40% of the LDN survey respondents saw transparency and open floor plans as a moderate priority, respectively; 34% said open plans constitute a “high” priority and 15% saw transparency as a high priority. 45% of LDN respondents saw collaboration areas as a high priority, and 40% said they are a moderate priority.
Interestingly, only about half the respondents from R&D Magazine said collaboration areas are commonly used within their laboratory settings. But about 71% of the respondents would like to have collaboration space if they had no budget constraints, and 81% believe collaboration space is very or somewhat important in a lab environment. 77% said an open floor plan is also important.
Openness can involve diverse features, such as glass walls, wider corridors, open laboratories with fewer partitions, large and small atriums, and open stairwells. “[The last greatest innovation in lab design] was the move, which began about 10 years ago, toward opening up the laboratory and integrating hard and soft social space,” says Erik Mollo-Christensen, AIA, principal, Tsoi/Kobus & Associates.
However, some on both the design and user side also feel that visual openness and transparency are sorely lacking—due in part to usage patterns rather than just design choices. “Even the latest movable furniture looks cluttered and messy five minutes after the scientists move in,” says Mollo-Christensen. “One obstacle to transparency is the dearth of new, innovative casework products. [Labs also] need more clever storage solutions to help mitigate clutter.”
It’s not as if casework design has stood still, since the demand for more adaptable space has been strong. Of the LDN respondents, 77% saw the need for flexibility in lab design as a positive trend during the past three years, while 73% saw movable casework as a moderate or high priority for clients. 87% said clients are emphasizing the ability to modify labs. Among the lab users answering the R&D survey, 68% use fixed furniture/casework and 64% use movable casework/furniture. Users do not appear to have a strong preference in terms of the importance level they would assign one type vs. the other.
Nevertheless, Rietz characterizes movable and adaptable lab furniture as the most recent great innovation in lab design. “For many, many years we had fixed furniture. Just in the last five years or so, laboratories are going towards mobile furniture. This allows users to rearrange things in the laboratory, and provides flexibility.”
The labs of the future
Although there are trends such as renovations instead of building, and the willingness to experiment not covered in this article, these trends all boil down to one objective if achieved: the lab of the future.
So, what was on the respondents’ list for their ideal lab? The user respondents longed for labs with more experiment space, lower operating costs, energy-efficient designs, flexibility for movement and within the lab, modular planning, and open labs. The lab designers longed to see labs that are carbon-neutral, open, aesthetically pleasing, plug-and-play, flexible and energy-efficient.
Lindsay Hock is managing editor of R&D Magazine and is based in Rockaway, N.J. (www.rdmag.com). R&D and Laboratory Design are both publications of Advantage Business Media. Julie S. Higginbotham, editor of Laboratory Design, assisted in the preparation of this report.
