Webinar Review: Beyond Casework—Designing High-Performance Lab Environments
Lab Design’s Casework & Furniture Digital Conference featured a session titled "Beyond Casework: Designing High-Performance Lab Environments," presented by Mark Paskanik, AIA, a lab planner and licensed architect with CRB.
With over 25 years of experience and 25 million square feet of laboratory space planned, Paskanik brought a wealth of "real-world" data to a discussion that reframed the laboratory not just as a room full of benches, but as a holistic, high-performance ecosystem.
This webinar, along with the other webinars in the Casework & Furniture Digital Conference, is available for free on demand viewing. Click here to view this webinar.
The philosophy of "Good Lab Design" (GLD)
Paskanik opened the webinar by introducing the concept of GLD (Good Lab Design). He argued that while industry acronyms like GMP or GXP focus on operations, GLD focuses on the physical space and engineering criteria. Central to this is the lab planning module. He illustrated that a thoughtful module—traditionally viewed as a 2D floor plan—actually dictates everything from structural integrity and engineering utilities to how scientists interact. By optimizing this basic shape for circulation and safety, he demonstrated that labs can achieve roughly 12 percent more efficiency in lineal feet of bench space, which can translate to thousands of additional feet of usable research space in large facilities.
Balancing collaboration and focused research
A unique highlight of the presentation was the discussion on the neurodiversity of scientists. Paskanik noted that unlike architects who thrive in open studios, many scientists require intense focus for "aha moments" and breakthroughs. To balance this with the need for collaboration, he suggested simple, informal zones within the lab—such as entry vestibules designed as mini-break areas. These zones allow scientists to interact without the time-consuming process of removing PPE, washing hands, and leaving the lab environment.
Safety and workflow: The "ghost corridor"
One of the most practical strategies shared was the implementation of a "ghost corridor" on the lab's perimeter. This design choice eliminates dead-end aisles, creating a safer environment with a secondary means of egress and significantly reducing the number of steps a researcher must take to move between equipment. Furthermore, these corridors act as a buffer for exterior architecture, preventing equipment from being shoved against glass windows and helping to manage UV-sensitive materials by blocking direct sunlight.
Automation, robotics, and the lab of the future
Paskanik emphasized that every modern lab integrates automation to some degree, categorizing users into Entry, Pro, and Expert levels. He showcased how expert-level labs can become fully closed systems where robots handle sample delivery and storage, drastically improving safety and sustainability. A key takeaway for those looking to scale was the importance of customization over off-the-shelf solutions; by working with custom shops, automation can be stripped down and reconfigured to fit existing lab modules.
Engineering and structural integrity
The webinar delved deep into the "invisible" costs of lab design: engineering and vibration control. Paskanik noted that as equipment miniaturizes, it often requires higher plug loads and more energy, necessitating scalable utility services.
Vibration criteria (VC curves) are increasingly critical as labs accommodate sensitive robotics and high-magnification microscopy. Paskanik favored concrete structures over steel for labs, noting that while steel might seem cheaper, the cost of fireproofing and its inherent "bounciness" often makes concrete a better value for meeting strict vibration standards.
On the topic of verifying these requirements in existing buildings, Dylan Smith, PE, SE, structural department head at CRB, contributed a vital technical perspective: “The best way to verify structural requirements when existing structural drawings are not available is to begin with thorough field verification of existing conditions. Field verification may consist of some combination of taking physical measurements of steel or concrete structural members, positive material sampling and testing of steel framing, concrete core and compression testing, and non‑destructive geophysical testing to identify reinforcing steel. The goal is to gather sufficient information to evaluate the floor’s live‑load capacity for lab occupancy and equipment and to support the development of floor vibration analytical models. Where sufficient field verified information can’t be gathered, this effort can be supplemented with field vibration monitoring to measure the structure’s response to footfall or ambient, service conditions. Field vibration monitoring uses strategically located accelerometers within the building to measure vibration amplitudes and frequencies and provide a direct comparison of measured data to VC-Curve criteria. In any case, a structural engineer should be retained to support the development of a comprehensive field evaluation plan.”
Flexibility vs. best value
In the concluding segment, Paskanik addressed the common misconception that "flexibility" simply means spending more money. Instead, he advocated for "best value"—spending strategically on modular systems that offer a "perfect fit" for the specific research group. This includes choosing the right casework, such as double-sided tables with independent frames that allow for easy reconfiguration without disturbing utilities. Ultimately, the webinar served as a reminder that there is no "perfect lab," only a perfect fit achieved through listening to users and integrating data-driven best practices.
