In this time of capital spending freezes, it can be tempting to blame external forces for problems in the laboratory construction market. But the slowdown in Massachusetts’ science and technology sector cannot be attributed entirely to the global economic struggles we face. As an industry, we may be pricing ourselves out of the game by developing research facilities that are unnecessarily expensive, built to accommodate the outer bounds of common lab use. Combined with high land costs, this design overkill makes it difficult for biotech firms to stay and expand in the Bay State and for our institutions to add to their space portfolios—two problems that profoundly challenge the state’s commitment to science as an economic driver.

Some of the pressure that keeps laboratory space at a premium could be eased by a collective effort in the designer and client community to rethink conventional rules of thumb that have underlaid our lab design philosophy for the past decade or more. Fundamental conventions that have proven to be safe measures for ensuring a high-functioning laboratory can be challenged by equally effective alternatives that provide the same level of building performance at lower cost—as much as $100/sf less.

Owners who think holistically about the ripple effect of savings through this unconventional approach may be able to offer more attractive and competitive space options and stimulate a new era of affordable laboratory design for both shell/core and fit-out projects.



Triple Threat

Three conventions that hold enormous cost-saving potential are vibration control, ventilation rates and electrical loads. When establishing criteria for these requirements, laboratory planners typically apply a rule of thumb that is far more conservative than necessary. By assuming that all users will be doing the same work at the same time, planners design for a condition that is unlikely to occur in a typical research environment. The result is a high construction cost that has little demonstrable benefit.

Replacing traditional rules of thumb with criteria that reflect a better understanding of how science is conducted and the diversity of work patterns within a building is a smarter way to go. By looking at trending reports from building monitoring systems and with direct observation of labs in use, we are identifying data and tools that make it possible to challenge the old manner of thinking with greater confidence.

Take vibration control. This safeguard is necessary in any lab facility to accommodate the numerous scientific activities that depend upon a stable environment, including high-resolution microscopy, mice breeding, and balancing and measuring. Although these activities comprise only a portion of the overall laboratory, standard criteria require stiff and heavy structures throughout all lab areas. A more thoughtful approach is to develop design solutions that place sensitive activities where the building is naturally stiffest: near columns and away from circulation zones that transmit vibrations from foot traffic. Lab activities that do not have the same sensitivities can be designed to lesser criteria, saving on structural costs. Successful examples of this concept can be found all over Boston including at the Karp Family Research Laboratories and the Center for Life Science Boston in the Longwood Medical Area. 



Clearing The Air

Next, consider ventilation rates. Ventilation is important in a lab environment to protect researchers from harmful fumes and contamination. But established criteria for ventilation rates assume that researchers will not observe the good lab practices in which they are mandatorily trained. This approach results in twice as many air changes per hour than are necessary based on a more nuanced look at material handling within a lab.

Using smart ventilation or “ventilation on demand,” as promoted by companies like Aircuity, can reduce overall ventilation volume in a building by 50 percent. Common practice also holds that high ventilation rates are needed to cool the heat generated by equipment-related electrical loads. Closer examination reveals that’s rarely the case, however. 

Electrical loads almost always are generated by a rule of thumb rather than an actual equipment list, which often is unavailable at the earliest stages of a project when criteria are being set. To build in flexibility, designers typically specify an array of electrical outlets, primarily for user convenience rather than anticipated load. Compounding the problem, the National Electric Code requires electrical engineers to treat these outlets as if they will all be used—resulting in oversized panel boards, distribution systems, switchgears and overall service. Mechanical engineers see this potential heat load and—no surprise—a high ventilation rate becomes justified. Numerous studies of labs in use by the sustainability organization Labs 21 (LEED for Labs), however, show that the designed electrical and cooling load is overstated by three to five times the typical average demand—a costly overbuild indeed.

Opportunities for meaningful cost savings like these examples can be found in many areas of building design, construction and operations. Not all will apply to every laboratory facility, but any project will benefit by challenging at least a few pieces of conventional thinking. The ripple effect can be surprising, enlightening and good for the bottom line. As our industry looks for new ways to do more with less, we should remember that smarter buildings can help ensure that the scientific infrastructure of our economy is as efficient and effective as it can be.â–
