When Labs Don’t Launch: Lessons from Recent Market Shifts

In recent years, life sciences real estate has been a hotbed for development, drawing interest from investors, developers, and design professionals alike. But a wave of high-profile project cancellations—from malls and office buildings to purpose-built R&D campuses—highlights the challenges of planning and executing lab redevelopments. For lab planners, architects, contractors, and end users, understanding why projects are being shelved is essential for mitigating risk and aligning design strategies with market realities.

Market dynamics and oversupply

One of the most significant drivers behind scrapped redevelopment projects is a shift in market conditions. In Boston, for instance, the Watertown Mall was set to transform into roughly 500,000 square feet of lab and office space. At the time of planning, the Greater Boston life sciences market was near zero vacancy, and lease rates exceeded $100 per square foot. Today, speculative development has outpaced demand, vacancy rates have climbed to nearly 28 percent, and lease rates have dropped to around $85 per square foot.

For lab planners and architects, this underscores a critical point: designing facilities without a clear, committed tenant base can be risky. High vacancy rates can translate to stalled projects or mid-construction pivots, impacting not just budgets but also design intent and operational planning.

Policy and regulatory environment

Government policies and incentives—or the lack thereof—can dramatically influence whether a redevelopment moves forward. In the UK, several pharmaceutical firms, including Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, paused or canceled major R&D expansions due to uncompetitive regulatory frameworks, unpredictable drug pricing policies, and inadequate government investment. For contractors and developers, this serves as a reminder that even the most meticulously planned project can stall if policy frameworks do not support growth in the sector.

End users and lab planners also feel the ripple effects: uncertainty about government support can limit long-term leases, slow approvals for specialized lab design, and make investments in custom infrastructure riskier.

Shifting corporate priorities

Life sciences companies are increasingly strategic about where and how they operate. Projects initiated during periods of rapid industry growth—often driven by pandemic-era demand—may no longer align with current corporate goals. For example, in Emeryville, CA, a planned 1.3 million-square-foot lab campus was sold to Sutter Health, which plans to convert it into a flagship medical facility instead of lab space.

For architects and planners, these shifts highlight the need for flexible design approaches. Modular layouts, adaptable lab configurations, and scalable systems can help future-proof projects, allowing spaces to pivot from wet labs to offices, or vice versa, in response to changing client needs.

Financial feasibility and risk

Redeveloping existing structures or constructing new lab facilities requires substantial investment in specialized mechanical, electrical, and safety systems. If market conditions soften or tenant demand fails to materialize, the projected return on investment may no longer justify the project. In many cases, alternative uses—such as housing, mixed-use, or conventional office space—offer lower risk and more predictable returns, prompting developers to pivot.

For contractors and planners, early collaboration with developers and end users can help identify cost-effective, adaptable solutions that mitigate financial risk while maintaining the integrity of lab operations.

Timing and speculative development

The timing of a project can make or break its feasibility. During the COVID-19 pandemic, urgent demand for research space fueled rapid approvals and speculative construction. But as pandemic-focused research funding waned, many markets became oversupplied with lab space, leaving some developments stranded.

Lab planners and end users should take note: aligning project schedules with real demand, rather than speculative forecasts, can prevent wasted resources and ensure facilities meet operational needs.

Lessons for the lab community

Across these examples, several themes emerge: market oversupply, regulatory uncertainty, shifting corporate priorities, financial risk, and speculative timing. For lab designers, architects, contractors, and end users, these factors underscore the importance of careful market analysis, flexible design strategies, and clear communication with stakeholders.

Scrapped lab redevelopment projects are not necessarily failures—they are recalibrations. By understanding why projects stall, the lab community can make smarter decisions, design adaptable spaces, and create facilities that remain viable even in a shifting market.

This article was written with the help of AI-generated content. Read more about our AI Policy.