Why Reuse Is Becoming a Strategic Choice
In today’s rapidly evolving life sciences landscape, the decision between building a brand-new lab and reusing an existing facility is no longer purely a matter of preference—it’s becoming a strategic imperative. For lab planners, architects, and end users tasked with creating functional, future-ready research environments, understanding the drivers, tradeoffs, and opportunities of lab reuse is essential.
“The industry today requires you to be smart in how you invest in your research,” explains Geoffrey Sears of Wareham Development, a real estate development and property management company that develops life sciences campuses in the San Francisco Bay Area. “Funding is hard-fought today. New Series A companies are only getting 12 to 24 months of cash runway from their investors. While large multi-national pharma companies may have financial resources to apply where they choose, they too are being very cautious about how, and where, they commit their funds.”
This financial reality is driving companies of all sizes to reconsider the traditional build-from-scratch approach. For smaller or mid-sized research-driven organizations, the priority is clear: channel as much capital as possible into science and innovation, rather than tying it up in real estate. Even for larger, well-funded firms, fiscal prudence has become part of the standard operating procedure. Reusing lab space, Sears emphasizes, is “fiscally smart and always has been.”
The enduring value of existing lab space
While market pressures have sharpened the focus on reuse, the underlying value proposition of “as-is” lab environments hasn’t fundamentally changed. “Our experience over nearly five decades suggests that the value proposition has not actually changed that much,” says Sears. “It has always been true that science-based companies generally do better when they allocate more of their financial resources— their cash—to research and less to real estate, so long as the real estate is sufficient to meet their root needs.”
Between 2015 and 2022, a period of relatively easy venture funding, some companies over-invested in facilities, often at the expense of research budgets. Today, that experience reinforces the appeal of reuse: labs that are fit-for-purpose, with robust mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure, allow tenants to optimize capital allocation while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Critical factors in lab selection
Not every organization is suited to reuse existing lab space. According to Sears, “It is typically larger companies much further along the evolutionary scale who need specialized spaces—those that may be doing pilot manufacturing and other scale-up efforts. Smaller and mid-sized companies often do well starting with more ‘commodity-like’ lab spaces.”
Even simpler lab environments, he notes, benefit from buildings designed with robust core infrastructure, enabling tenants to adapt space efficiently as their needs evolve. The key for decision-makers is evaluating whether a space can support the organization’s scientific priorities, either as-is or with cost-effective modifications.
Unlike office spaces, which can often accommodate remote work or flexible seating arrangements, labs are precise “machines” that must function effectively to produce research outcomes. “Those machines must work and succeed at their purposes, or research companies cannot succeed,” Sears emphasizes.
Lab planners and end users must consider core functional requirements—fume hoods for chemistry labs, tissue culture rooms for biology-focused research, and adequate ventilation, power, and workflow patterns. Flexibility is valuable, but only if the lab can first accomplish its essential scientific mission.
Where reuse delivers value, and where it requires tradeoffs
Reusing lab space offers clear advantages in both capital planning and timelines. Modifying an existing facility is often faster and less costly than starting from the ground up. “Re-use is cost and time smart for companies. It is also more sustainable and thus smart for society and the planet,” notes Sears. In today’s funding environment, the ability to move quickly while conserving cash can be decisive in a company’s ability to attract follow-on investment.
Organizations pursuing reuse must make intentional tradeoffs. While flexibility and customization can be valuable, they are secondary to meeting core scientific needs. “Spaces must accomplish the root scientific needs of their occupant companies. This may mean they can be very generic or highly customized. Flexibility is helpful, but how flexible and over what time periods become key questions,” Sears explains. Companies that succeed in their labs can then leverage additional funding to expand or modify their space as needed.
Developers and landlords are evolving to support a reuse-first mindset. Traditionally, biotech real estate was a niche market with high barriers to entry. Today, real estate firms provide not just space, but operational expertise, infrastructure, and campus settings that enable rapid scaling. As Sears notes, “Our tenants also look to us to help them grow quickly when they need to, which has meant we need to have substantial holdings in campus settings to allow such growth.”
Developers who understand the unique demands of lab tenants—mechanical and electrical infrastructure, specialized HVAC, and scientific workflow—are better positioned to support long-term reuse. New entrants to the market may struggle to adapt to these requirements, highlighting the value of experience and scale.
Long-term implications for lab planning
The reuse-first approach is not merely a response to temporary market pressures; it is a proven strategy with enduring relevance. “Wise reuse has been a successful approach in the market all along, not just some new development in response to today’s market dynamics. We also believe it will continue into the future, especially at times when funding becomes constrained,” Sears observes.
For architects, engineers, and lab planners, this trend requires a shift in mindset. Instead of focusing solely on designing from a blank canvas, they must assess, adapt, and optimize existing spaces. “Being able and willing to dig into existing spaces and existing conditions and apply the creativity and know-how to deliver a space that works cost-effectively can really distinguish such team members. Those types of architects and planners are the only types we deal with,” Sears emphasizes.
The shift toward reuse creates opportunities to accelerate timelines, conserve capital, and maintain focus on scientific priorities. Key considerations include:
Assess infrastructure carefully: Evaluate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems to ensure they can support current and anticipated scientific workflows.
Prioritize core scientific needs: Flexibility and aesthetic improvements are secondary to functionality; labs must deliver on their intended research outcomes.
Leverage experienced developers: Partner with landlords or developers who understand the specialized requirements of life sciences tenants and can facilitate rapid scaling.
Consider long-term adaptability: Even simple lab environments should be located in buildings that allow for incremental growth as funding and research needs evolve.
Balance speed and cost: Reuse can reduce construction timelines and capital expenditures, allowing organizations to focus on research and innovation.
Ultimately, the decision to reuse lab space is a strategic one that blends financial prudence, operational efficiency, and sustainability. For stakeholders planning new builds or renovations, embracing this approach requires creativity, experience, and a laser focus on enabling scientific success.
“Unlike office spaces, which we have seen can be replaced by people working from home or from the corner coffee shop, lab spaces are actual ‘machines’ that research companies use to produce their products—namely, innovation,” says Sears. “Those machines must work and succeed at their purposes, or research companies cannot succeed. “
