Lab of the Year entries reveal eight current trends By Julie S. Higginbotham Part 2: Lab of the Year: Trends Analysis    As discussed in Part 1 of this article (October, page 1), R&D Magazine’s annual Lab of the Year competition always offers useful information about design trends—including trends illustrated by the projects that are not selected for award recognition. The prior article reviewed current themes in lab design based on an analysis of the entry pool for the 2007 competition, including: • Boundary-busting buildings (nano-bio-geo-chem-eomics). • Let’s get physical (cleanrooms, high-bay, data centers). • Mission critical (homeland security and beyond). • Let there be light (even in the basement). This month’s installment will examine four additional themes, again based on an examination of the entire entry pool: • How green is your lab? (green mandatory; LEED optional). • Playing it safe (but maximizing chemical use). • Taking it outside (collaboration beyond the perimeter walls). • The rising tide lifts all boats (excellence in unexpected places). Though these two articles emphasize projects that did not receive awards, the winning projects (described in the May 2007 issue of Laboratory Design) also exemplify many of the trends discussed. Refer to Part 1 for additional information about the competition, including judging criteria and data regarding the types of projects and organizations represented. Fig. 1. Sloped ceilings at the perimeter of the lab zones are part of the daylighting strategy at the LEED Gold CDC Building 110. Photo: Michelle Litvin.Click to enlarge.   Green with LEED Both the LOY entry pool and informal conversations indicate that many clients are willing to invest in sustainable design, but not always in LEED registration and certification. The submissions included several LEED Silver and even Gold projects, but also a good number that incorporated sustainability features—sometimes quite extensive—but abstained from the LEED process. In fact, about three quarters of 2007’s entrants mentioned green design, indicating that many submitters now believe a project must display at least some sustainable strategies to have a chance at winning an award. (Since our perspective is limited to entrants, this should not be taken as proof that such a high percentage of all lab projects are incorporating green design.) Among the LEED buildings entered was the 147,000-ft2 Div. of Laboratory Sciences (Building 110) at the Centers for Disease Control’s Chamblee, Ga., campus. The Gold status is impressive given the other constraints of this highly flexible building, as discussed in Part 1. Architect Perkins+Will reduced the building footprint by using interstitial floors, helping to conserve open space on the campus. The extreme amount of flexible casework will save waste in the long run when the CDC needs to reconfigure. Building 110 has a long list of sustainability features, including energy-efficient glazing; extensive daylighting with occupancy sensors in both labs and offices (Fig. 1, above); a CO2 monitoring system to safeguard indoor air quality; rainwater collection for irrigating the drought-resistant landscaping; and extensive regional sourcing of materials (about half of what’s in the building is local or regional, which helped garner a LEED Innovation credit). About 21% of the materials also had recycled content, and about 60% of the construction waste was recycled. The facility boasts multiple energy recovery systems, and the CDC expects energy costs to be about $160,000 a year less than those of a comparable conventional building. Fig. 2. Separation of office and lab zones allows occupants to enjoy operable windows at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s Molecular Foundry. Photo: David Wakely.Click to enlarge. The Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif., also recently achieved LEED Gold (Fig. 2, left). LBNL is a leader in research on energy efficiency in buildings, so the commitment is not surprising. The design team, led by SmithGroup, used the Labs21 Environmental Performance Criteria as a guideline in addition to the LEED system. The energy demand for this 95,700-ft2 lab is modeled at 27% less than California Title 24 requirements; the building is 35% less energy-intensive than specified by ASHRAE 90.1. The design is also intended to use about a third less potable water than baseline requirements, achieved with low-flow fixtures and waterless urinals; a closed-loop recirculating process water system; and the use of vacuum systems instead of aspirators. Plug load analysis is a current emphasis at LBNL, and the Foundry’s electrical supply was reduced from the initial design load of 25 W/ft2 to 15 W/ft2 based on the results of a metering study done at other campus labs. Sustainable materials include exterior cladding with a high recycled aluminum content; locally produced cast-in-place concrete; and phenolic resin countertops. The energy-efficient fume hoods and other mechanical systems were verified by commissioning. A new Labs21 case study detailing the Foundry’s sustainable features is available at: www.labs21century.gov/toolkit/case_studies.htm. Other LEED-registered projects in the competition this year were the Interdisciplinary Science and Technology 1 building at Arizona State Univ., Tempe; and a bioinformatics and cancer research lab at the Buffalo Niagara (N.Y.) Medical Center, shared by SUNY Buffalo and the Roswell Cancer Institute. Green without LEED Interestingly, some of the entries that talked the most about sustainability were not LEED-registered projects. Among them were these notable entries: • SUNY Geneseo Integrated Science Center. This 113,000-ft2 multidisciplinary building has brought a new paradigm to science teaching at Geneseo. Though the client wanted a green building (and hired Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, an A/E firm with a strong track record in sustainability), the design was restricted by a New York university fund guideline created more than 40 years ago—providing only about $225/ft2 for this lab-heavy building. Meanwhile, a new state executive order mandated sustainability goals fairly late in the design process. The university chose to incorporate a wheel-type energy recovery system; a more sophisticated building management system to regulate air supply in response to occupancy; and occupancy sensors for artificial lighting. CFD modeling allowed downsizing of the atrium exhaust system. A new high-efficiency chiller plant will serve several buildings as a way to leverage the green investment. Fig. 3. A new state sustainability guideline encouraged features such as daylighting at the MDA/MDH Laboratory Building, a Minnesota public health lab. Photo: George Heinrich.Click to enlarge. • Minnesota Dept of Agriculture/Dept. of Health Laboratory Building. Designed by HGA with lab consulting by CUH2A, this Minneapolis BSL-2/-3 facility is the first governed by a new state sustainability guideline called B3. The standard is similar to LEED but with adjustments intended to reflect Minnesota’s extreme winter climate. A total energy recovery wheel was the primary strategy in this 176,000-ft2 project, credited for reducing energy use to about half of what’s conventional under the prevailing code. A simple payback of only 1.5 years is expected on this $600,000 investment. Other green features include high-efficiency lighting, ample daylighting, and low-emissivity construction materials (Fig. 3, left). • Univ. of Washington School of Medicine, Brotman Building, Seattle. This lab started life as a modernist-era building owned by a gas utility. The adaptive reuse project gutted most of the 105,000-ft2 facility and incorporated enough green features to be a “LEED Silver equivalent,” according to architect Perkins+ Will. A loop-style heat recovery system was installed, along with high-efficiency chillers, motors, and variable frequency drives. HVAC systems were commissioned. Air quality strategies include use of CO2 sensors; low-VOC coatings, carpet, and sealants; and a pre-occupancy air flush-out. Labs are perimeter-mounted for ample daylight (Fig. 4,below). Fig. 4. A surprising number of “green” design tactics are evident in the adaptive reuse project created for the Univ. of Washington Medicine Lake Union in the former “Blue Flame” building, now known as the Brotman Building. Plan: Perkins+Will.Click to enlarge. Additional points would have been garnered for reuse of an existing facility, installation of some casework salvaged from other university labs, and an urban location close to public transit. • Georgia Tech, Molecular Science & Engineering Building, Atlanta. LEED was used as a guideline for this 275,000-ft2 project, which was designed by CUH2A. Green tactics include whole-building commissioning, a heat pipe energy recovery system, wind tunnel modeling for placement of exhausts and air intakes, an extensive stormwater management plan, an Energy Star-compliant “cool roof,” diversion of about 50% of construction waste from landfills, constant CO2 monitoring, and use of recycled and low-emissivity materials. Playing it safe Judges were impressed by the apparent increase in sophistication regarding environmental health and safety issues, including chemical storage and waste handling. For instance, the concept of control areas is becoming well-entrenched as a safe way of leveraging chemical use in facilities. Fig. 5. Control areas on lab floors two through four at the Harvard/MIT Broad Institute are created by fire-rated separations, marked in red dashes on the plan. Design: Elkus Manfredi with Steve Copenhagen.Click to enlarge. The level of EHS planning at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Univ., in Cambridge, Mass., reflects advanced thinking, including the approach to control areas. There are seven stories with a floorplate of about 28,000 ft2. All the lab floors below 65 ft (floors two, three, and four) have a 4-hr-rated area separation wall between the lab zone and the office zone (Fig. 5, left). The penetrating doors are glass for transparency; a secondary fire-rated door at those points would close automatically if there were an alarm. In combination with the Type 1 construction of the structure and floor slabs, this technique maximizes H occupancy ratings so chemical use can also be maximized as needed. On high floors, the concentration of office space is somewhat greater, and there are fewer labs that would require significant quantities of chemicals. The building was designed by Elkus Manfredi, with lab consulting by Steve Copenhagen. Fig. 6. Safety features at Georgia Tech’s Molecular Science & Engineering Building include orange paint and flooring at shower/eyewash stations. Photo: Korab Photo. Plan: CUH2A.Click to enlarge. Click to enlarge. The Georgia Tech MS&E building, discussed above, was also designed to maximize safe chemical usage, with a strategy that provides the greatest number of possible control areas in a B-occupancy building. Again the design includes fire-rated walls and other structural features dictated by NFPA 45. The whole building is sprinklered and is served by a just-in-time delivery system from a central chemical stock room—a new strategy for a lab at Tech. The shower locations in each lab suite are clearly designated by orange paint on the walls and orange floor tile (Fig. 6, above). The linear equipment rooms also have clearly marked showers and eyewashes, eliminating the need to enter a lab if there were an accident in the LER. Fig. 7. At Purdue Univ.’s Birck Nanotechnology Center, gases are housed in automated gas storage cabinets and piped to the point of use in double-containment piping. Photo: HDR Architecture/Ahmad Soueid.Click to enlarge. The 215,000-ft2 Birck Nanotechnology Center at Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind., was designed by HDR to reflect a shifting lineup of projects and users. User training is a bigger challenge with a constantly changing roster of players; a strict system of needs-based admission is imposed for subfabs and access behind chase walls, and card access is in place at the exterior and multiple interior zones. Ample interior glazing allows views into the labs from outside, making it easier to maintain contact with users. An automated gas storage cabinet system improves safety, as does a hydrogen generator that eliminates the need for hydrogen storage (Fig. 7, left). The cleanroom is designed to NFPA 318 standards, which are stricter than required by code. Clearly marked showers and eyewashes are available, draining to an acid containment system. Emergency shutoffs and alarms are clearly marked buildingwide, with a designated emergency response center for controlling all alarms. Chemical suits and breathing apparatus are centrally located. Each lab has a student safety officer, and the overall safety manager is at an equivalent rank to the building manager and process equipment manager. Fig. 8. The pink buildings in the plan are two new labs for the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, forming a new central pedestrian area for the entire campus. Design: Ellenzweig Associates.Click to enlarge. Taking it outside Indoor-outdoor spaces used to be seen as a specialty of West Coast labs, but we’re observing more and more entries nationwide that take an integrated approach. If the theory that productive collaboration happens outside the lab is correct, providing well-designed outdoor spaces makes good sense. This kind of amenity can contribute to retention and recruitment, provided the science facilities indoors are also top-notch. The indoor-outdoor marriage supports the work-life balance increasingly desired by a new generation of researchers. (No one prefers to be in a box all day, even if it’s a wonderfully well equippped box.) The Woods Hole (Mass.) Oceanographic Institution is an environmentally oriented organization on beautiful Cape Cod, so taking advantage of the environment seems like a no-brainer. But the Woods Hole campus comprises numerous older buildings scattered around during decades of development, and the sense of environmental organization and harmony has been less than ideal. The two-building lab project that won High Honors this year included a new master plan that reoriented the site around a pedestrian core formed by the siting of the new buildings, with a meadow in between (Fig. 8, above). Fig. 9. A sizable café deck at the The Univ. of Texas Heath Science Center’s new Fayez S. Sarofim Research Building attracts crowds at many times of the year. Photo: Richard Payne.Click to enlarge. The buildings were situated to create a coherent campus center, punctuated by mature trees. The new plaza outside the Marine Research Lab has a pedestrian link to the Biogeochemistry Lab, and several new pathways now link the other campus buildings to the core. Modest lightweight furniture is provided in first-floor lounges and break rooms so it’s easy for users to take it out to the plaza and move it around. Ellenzweig Associates designed both the buildings and the master plan.   Sometimes outdoor space is the absolute last thing one wants in Houston—but at many times of year, lovely weather is the norm. The Univ. of Texas Health Science Center’s new Fayez S. Sarofim Research Building has a large outdoor deck at the third-floor level that is reportedly quite popular. There is easy access from the office block and from an adjacent lounge (Fig. 9, above left). The Sarofim lab also incorporates attractive outdoor water features that enhance the sense of place and bring a touch of coolness and peace. The 300,000-ft2 building is intended to anchor a new section of the UT Health Science Center, and the primary water feature and adjacent courtyard provide a central gathering point. The health science campus is extremely built-up and open space is at a premium, so it’s significant that the owners chose to go in this direction; in fact, the client specifically asked for outdoor amenities as an aid to recruitment. The designers were BNIM Architects with Burt Hill. Fig. 10. The Georgia Tech MS&E building (rear) forms a quad with three other new science facilities; open space both in front of and behind the building create a pleasant indoor-outdoor collaborative zone. Photo: Korab Photo.Click to enlarge. At Georgia Tech, a new engineering quad was completed by the two-wing MS&E building project, which is split in part to improve pedestrian flow. A natural wooded “glade” north of the building is part of a water retention strategy. The grade steps up from the south side of the MS&E building via a terraced courtyard that serves as an informal amphitheatre for outdoor events (Fig. 10, left). Easy access to a café with indoor and outdoor seating also improves the quality of life in this part of the campus. Excellence in unexpected places A trend that’s become evident in the past few years is the increasing overall excellence level in the entry pool. Some projects submitted this year might have been Lab of the Year or at least High Honors winners a few years ago, but did not win awards this time because the bar has been set increasingly high. Good ideas are being more widely disseminated, playing a role in raising quality across the board. Fig. 11. Sophisticated support facilities at the Biotechnology Research Facility 1, a multi-tenant building in the Piedmont Triad Research Park, Wake Forest, N.C., include this animal surgery suite. Photo: Wake Forest Univ. Health Sciences.Click to enlarge. A case in point appears at Wake Forest Univ., a school perhaps more famous for basketball than science. The Health Sciences division has created Biotechnology Research Facility 1, a key piece of the planned Piedmont Triad Research Park. This zone in central Winston-Salem, N.C., comprises 240 acres once owned by R.J. Reynolds. The property is dotted with abandoned cigarette plants and tobacco warehouses. Biotechnology Research Facility 1, at 180,000 ft2, was crafted by architect O’Brien Atkins Associates to suit the needs of two Wake Forest research groups as well as commercial lab firms. The labs in this anchor building are typical generic open labs, and an unusually wide assortment of core and support labs are available, including a microscopy suite with partial EMI shielding; four large tissue culture labs; and a well-equipped multi-species vivarium (including a barrier facility for rodents) with a surgical and necropsy suite (Fig. 11, above). Future new and adaptive-reuse buildings are planned for the science park, which has been master planned by Sasaki Associates. Fig. 12. The Multidisciplinary Research Building is a cornerstone of an ambitious plan to create a new science campus at the Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence. Photo: Robert Pettus Photography.Click to enlarge. The Multidisciplinary Research Building at the Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, is part of an ambitious plan to create a new research campus in the Sunflower State (Fig. 12, left). KU finished a three-phase structural biology center in the past three years and is now building a drug discovery center that should also be complete by year’s end. The master plan calls for a major interdisciplinary science building and a sizable vivarium, and possibly a whole new school of pharmacy. The 106,000-ft2 MRB project, designed by Cannon, includes a central plant in the basement to provide chilled water and high pressure steam to the whole research campus. The building is diverse and includes BSL-3 space and some nanotech cleanroom space—about 3,300 ft2—but most of it consists of quality generic wet labs. A cooperative program with the art department brings exhibits into the public spaces, which is apparently producing an interesting cross-pollination of ideas. KU’s master plan brings to mind similar science campus development plans nationwide, from the Univ. of Alaska in Fairbanks to the Univ. of Virginia. Clearly this is a trend that has penetrated far beyond the traditional top-tier research universities. The state of New York made a major investment in science infrastructure with its Ge*NY*sis and Centers of Excellence funding program, resulting in multiple new research hubs (for instance, a bioinformatics and life sciences center in Buffalo, and a nanoelectronics center in Albany). SUNY Geneseo, a liberal arts college, didn’t get a center but clearly has no intention of being left behind. The college is in a depressed region due to downsizing by firms like Kodak and Corning. However the administration has recently tightened its admission standards and has made a major statement by creating the undergrad science center discussed in the “green” section above. The building replaces cramped, outdated facilities for biology, geology, chemistry, and physics, with the goal of tripling the size of the existing science program. Phase 2 will be a major renovation of an existing science facility. Fig. 13. Students at SUNY Geneseo now have access to an array of high-quality equipment, including this TEM. Photo: Izon Productions Don Dannecker.Click to enlarge. Geneseo students now have access to up-to-date core facilities and a great deal of new equipment. The specialty labs include fluid dynamics, rock crushing and grinding, an animal suite, a pelletron accelerator, and NMR, TEM, and STM capability (Fig. 13, left). The equipment funding was made possible in part by grants, which were bolstered by the school’s commitment evidenced in the building. A rooftop astronomy area and new greenhouses are also featured. According to officials, faculty recruiting has improved, including a new influx of applications from PhD-level researchers. The $33 million investment by the state of New York is bound to pay significant dividends, and perhaps bring a boost to the area in terms of stemming brain drain. How to get involved R&D Magazine actively seeks entrants for the 2008 Lab of the Year competition, with a deadline of Feb. 1, 2008. Application details are now available at www.rdmag.com/loy.aspx. We look forward to being inspired by your projects. Julie S. Higginbotham is editor of Laboratory Design newsletter. Other trends observed in the entry pool • More creative design of teaching labs. • High-class food service and amenities. • Sophisticated AV and communications technology, especially wireless. • More robust computer/data center infrastructure. • Modular construction (not just design), both of specialized spaces like cleanrooms and of entire facilities. • Passive ventilation, chilled beam, geothermal, and other unconventional HVAC strategies. • More creative project delivery methods and technologies, such as BIM (building information modeling).