Bill Harris

Flexibility and adaptability have been drivers in the design of commercial laboratory space for many years. The demand for these qualities comes from both biotech and pharmaceutical companies and also from the landlords and developers of the buildings and spaces built for the booming and risk-intensive science industry.

For the commercial or institutional biotech company, research programs are altered, canceled, expanded and evolved in an often unpredictable pattern. Changes in staffing and the direction of science are further impacted by changes in technology: new robotics, process and analytical devices can often expedite discovery, but they also usually require reconfiguration of lab spaces and utilities to accommodate the new equipment.

Additionally, business decisions often lead to acquisitions and other changes that mean new people and programs, previously unplanned, need to be accommodated. Look at almost any company and one will find three truisms after three to five years of lab occupancy: first, the layout, adjacencies and assignment of spaces will be different than originally intended. Second, benches, utilities and even rooms will have been altered (at a cost, of course) to accommodate change. Third, even with the best organization, organic growth will mean that groups are located and moved to available space which is likely not ideal either for the function or for its adjacency to important collaborators.

Cost Considerations Limit Lab Development

For the developer and landlord, the cost of construction must be incorporated into rents. While market demand at the moment in Cambridge has supported higher rents, this is not the case across all markets in the Northeast. Without an economic model to support the high cost of lab construction, many locales in the country cannot provide a supply of commercial lab space to support the demand – and certainly not the demand by the academic or startup ventures that feed discovery and are often the launching ground for new medicines and new industry growth.

Knowing these pressures on space and costs, it might be surprising that one answer to the latest trend in solving these problems can be found in a space built over eight years ago – a lifetime in this quick-paced industry.

The space in question was an 80,000-square-foot interior lab and office program for an existing vacant space in a building on Binney Street in Kendall Square. The space was a raw shell and had never been constructed for a tenant since the building was built, but was now to be built out for a biotechnology research tenant with a mix of lab, support and office space requirements.

The design for this tenant was driven by three primary needs. First, the company has a strong culture and brand identity with a focus on a collaborative and open approach to science. The space needed to simultaneously support the company’s culture and scientific interactions. Second, the design commenced before a specific set of users and requirements was identified, so it needed to accommodate unknown spatial and utility requirements dependent on advancements in technology and scientific equipment, on top of programmatic changes. Finally, while not certain, it was likely that the tenant might vacate the space after its five-year lease, when its newly expanded headquarters building some blocks away was constructed. Every dollar spent on the shorter lease term space, therefore, needed to be assessed for its payback.

For this last point, the design of the space became important to the landlord as well because if future tenants required significant redesign, then reconstruction of the space within five years might compromise the economics of this or future deals.

In response to these criteria, the architects designed a functional space with an inherent logic to the layout of labs and offices, using a kit of parts, which included utility service distribution carriers to lab benches, doors frames, windows, lighting and more. Driven as much by a desire to create a great place for employees and to create a purely functional environment, the project ultimately was recognized as an award-winning workplace. But no one really knew just how adaptable the space would be.

Well, the jury is back and adaptability has been proven.

As expected, the tenant vacated the space after five years when its lease expired. It was then leased by another biotech giant, which moved in and occupied it for lab and office personnel with virtually no changes to the architecture. Another company is already slated to become the third tenant, and while their science and functional requirements are different from the previous two tenants, they will be able to occupy the space with alterations to less than 10 percent of the square footage.

The lessons here go beyond notions of adaptability. They relate to reversing a familiar principle in the architectural world: Form follows function. In this particular case, the original design was performed by architects who were so specific in addressing scientific needs that they had an in-house scientist on staff to confirm accommodation of specific technical requirements. The form did indeed follow the function. But that specificity was balanced with a design which created great spaces for people and for research – flexible, full of light and pleasant – such that they have accommodated many functions for many different occupants over time. Function follows form, when the form is smart and compelling enough to lead the way.

Still, perhaps the biggest payoffs to this type of design example are in sustainability and economic value. What could be more sustainable and economical than to avoid demolishing and rebuilding 80,000 square feet of expensive lab space three times in eight years?

Bill Harris is a principal and practice leader at Perkins+Will Boston.