Seven Ways that Life Sciences Buildings Can Support Today’s Advanced Research Needs

As Research Methods in the Life Sciences Develop at an Unprecedented Rate, How Can Our Buildings Keep Up?

April 22, 2019

Science and Higher Education Practice Leader, NBBJ

Editor’s Note: This post is condensed from an article co-authored by Alinea, NBBJ and Arup and originally published in Building magazine.

By 2023, experts anticipate the UK economy will create an additional 142,000 new jobs in science, research and engineering. The way scientists work is changing, and so must their environments. Here are some of the key drivers affecting life science spaces today:

  • Attracting talent
    While the UK’s demand for highly skilled researchers, technologists, scientists and engineers is growing, the talent supply is falling short: the Open University found 91% of organisations struggled to find skilled talent in the last 12 months.
  • High workspace expectations
    More than one-third of knowledge-based workers work outside a traditional office setting, and the design of academic and science workplaces goes beyond just offices and laboratories: these spaces must support collaboration and focus as well as embody the vision, values and culture of the research organisation. Workspace expectations are also high in relation to the health and wellbeing agenda.
  • Advanced technology and processes
    Due to increasing technological support, in the last 10 years laboratory designs have shifted away from the traditional wet lab with separate office, to include a larger proportion of dry lab spaces and engagement areas.
  • Highly optimised and efficient buildings
    Some organisations now lean towards shared spaces and equipment, in which lab benches are booked rather than assigned permanently, lab concierges designate space and arrange ‘just-in-time’ apparatus deliveries, and scientists and specialist technicians pool their complex analytical equipment.
  • Future flexibility
    Despite ongoing demand for highly specialised spaces, research facility design can be based on generic, flexible configurations to allow a wide range of multidisciplinary scientific activities. The most successful future-proofed environments provide long-term adaptability without overdesigning and overspending.

 

Design Responses

The trends and themes described above have specific implications on the design of lab spaces, as designers rise to the challenge of meeting the future needs of the fast-growing and constantly evolving science sector:

  • Facade design may need to respond to the increasing desire for ‘science on show’ while fulfilling high-building performance requirements.
  • Adjacencies of different relevant functions must be captured, connectivity provided and the ‘chance encounter’ encouraged.
  • A sustainable and flexible approach to soft and hard facilities management should be adopted within the design approach.
  • Flexible space will offer the potential for future adaptation and allow users to flex between wet and dry lab space.
  • Testing the layouts for potential usage options at an early stage allows the team to make a considered provision for central plant, with strategies for locally flexing the provision as usage changes over time. Overprovision of services does not benefit the scheme economically or strategically, adversely affecting floor heights, plant sizes and capital cost.
  • The location of plant needs careful consideration to accommodate vibration-sensitive equipment often associated with life science research. Early identification of zones where low vibration can be safeguarded helps define equipment zones, support spaces and influences plant locations. Providing sufficient distance between fume extract requirements and intake locations adds further constraints.
  • Structural solutions need to respond to floor-loading requirements to keep the building’s use flexible over its lifespan and to meet localised vibration criteria requirements. Structural layouts should be developed to set a rational grid that responds to design efficiencies, while at the same time creating ‘swing space’ for laboratory or office planning modules.

 

Controlling Costs

As the volume of research accelerates, so too is the increasing pressure to monitor operational costs associated with running these highly serviced and complex environments. Designing alongside specialists and users helps building designers improve functionality, increase efficiencies and create more sustainable buildings.

The design process itself can be made increasingly efficient by using a data-driven approach. Smart tools are allowing designers to determine the ideal spatial relationships at the onset of the design process. Design computation allows clients, designers and consultants to explore numerous variables simultaneously — and to review the impact on space requirements and costs in real-time.

These tools, combined with the closer integration of architecture with structural and building services design, are challenging traditional laboratory design concepts, allowing teams to create more efficient buildings that add value while minimising capital and operational cost expenditure. As with any building project, understanding and developing the brief with the client leads to improved and successful long-term outcomes.

Banner image courtesy jarmoluk/Pixabay.

Share this:  envelope facebook twitter googleplus tumblr linkedin
Comment Follow nbbX

Five Questions About How Sustainability Improves Human Well-being Here and Now, Not Just the Distant Future

An Interview with NBBJ’s Sustainability Leader Margaret Montgomery

March 4, 2019

Sustainable Design Leader, NBBJ

@MargaretMontgo1

Editor’s Note: This post is adapted from an interview originally published in the Q4 2018 issue of DesignIntelligence Quarterly.

What sustainability priorities should we focus on?

High-performance, sustainable projects are the only future that is viable for our profession and our clients. Zero carbon is viable for many projects, and we’re able to steer clients toward an achievement that’s possible for them. Material selections for reduced environmental and health impact are easier every month. Planning and site development for resilience and for a healthier urban ecosystem are equally critical.

 

You mentioned materials transparency. What are you doing about that?

We’re tweaking our specifications in areas where we can knowledgeably improve our standard options. For example, if we want to include a product, and we have enough manufacturers that are willing to disclose what’s in their product, we can require that disclosure.

We’re getting a bit more sophisticated about reducing the carbon footprint of our projects, as well. For example, what are all the concrete mixes? What’s the lowest-carbon concrete mix we can use for that particular structural purpose? How can we make sure that we are fine-tuning those mixes for the lowest carbon while maintaining performance?

The largest carbon and environmental footprint tends to be in the structure and exterior materials. The health footprint, the complicated chemistry, and the disclosures tend to congregate around the finish materials and that end of the spectrum.

 

Where do the ideas of being practical and being effective intersect best for sustainability?

If we’re doing things in the right way, we shouldn’t need to add money. We should be able to reallocate resources in a smarter way to do almost everything we want to do. So, for instance, if we create a better conceptual design — with the right window/wall ratio, better orientation and massing for passive energy flows, and we put the effort into better architecture — we should be able to spend less money on mechanical heating and cooling. To me, that’s pragmatic and effective because we’re conserving first-cost resources and getting more from our client’s money. The goal is to do that while also creating a more comfortable, more livable place for everyone who experiences it.

 

In the years that you’ve been practicing sustainable design, what changes have you observed in clients’ viewpoints?

Many of our clients recognize the value of creating space that helps them and their people be more comfortable and perform better. This was an idea that probably didn’t resonate well a few years ago because there weren’t enough studies to show the connection between what we thought intuitively were good things for people and our quantitative goals.

 

What makes you hopeful? What challenges you?

What makes me hopeful is the human spirit and the desire to make things better. You see it a lot lately in various movements outside of the building industry as well as all of the groundswell around addressing climate change. At the core, I believe we all want to make the world a better place. The challenge is how hard it is sometimes to find a common understanding or a way to communicate that gets us all headed in the same direction.

Banner image courtesy Stuart Isett/NBBJ. 

Share this:  envelope facebook twitter googleplus tumblr linkedin
Comment Follow nbbX

Three Ways of Reimagining the Emergency Department

Ideas for Shaping the Emergency Department of the Future

February 12, 2019

Principal, NBBJ

Editor’s Note: This post is adapted from a white paper co-authored by Bryan Langlands and Durell Coleman, Founder/CEO of DC Design, and originally published by the Facility Guidelines Institute (FGI). The white paper is based on the “Reimaging the ED” workshop sponsored by FGI and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and held at the 2017 Healthcare Facilities Symposium & Expo in Austin, TX, where more than 100 ED clinicians, design professionals and students gathered.

Today in the United States, nearly 50 percent of all hospital care begins in the emergency department (ED) and, over the last 20 years, ED patient volume has increased by 23 percent as many Americans use the ED to access primary care services. Many factors have contributed to these trends, including:

  • The aging of the baby boomer generation
  • Increased longevity of people with chronic diseases
  • Gaps in provision of care for behavioral health patients
  • Limited operating hours of primary care providers
  • Lack of affordable insurance and other issues affecting individual access to medical care
  • Requirement of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) for EDs to treat everyone, whether they have insurance or not

While the U.S. health care system struggles to determine how to address these difficult and complex issues, there are changes that can be implemented now to improve the function and flow of emergency department services and facilitate quality patient care: by (1) improving arrival and front-end operations, (2) reducing patient length of stay, and (3) improving the experience of behavioral health patients.

 

(1) Improve arrival and front-end operations with technology.

Technology could be deployed to make patient arrival, sorting, and waiting processes more efficient. One idea: providing a registration kiosk for low-acuity patients. Another idea is a vitals-monitoring bracelet that could be used to assess and monitor patients in the waiting area. Such approaches could result in reduced stress and better flow for triage and front-end operations.

 

(2) Reduce low-acuity patients’ length of stay.

A significant problem is the treatment of low-acuity, non-emergency patients in spaces designed for patients who require a bed. Some solutions: smaller treatment spaces for these “vertical” patients, or treatment rooms that could easily and quickly be converted to hold multiple low-acuity patients during peak hours. Such spaces would speed up delivery of care for low-acuity patients and reduce the amount of time they — and consequently all patients — spend in the ED.

As one way to identify these low-acuity patients, the ED could be zoned by Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level. Creating ESI zones would support more flexible and efficient use of space and could decrease patient waiting times. Each area in the ED would be designed with patient care stations sized appropriately for the type of patient seen there.

 

(3) Create spaces for behavioral health patients.

There are many concerns surrounding behavioral health services provided in the ED setting, including the tendency to hold these patients in the ED for two to three days before placement in an inpatient unit or transfer to a psychiatric hospital. Spaces are needed that better suit this patient population. Because the ED is not specifically designed to provide care for the behavioral health population and the typical patient stays longer and requires different attention than typical ED patients, the flow and throughput of the entire emergency department is negatively affected when suitable behavioral health facilities are not provided.

 

It is important to remember the ED is not a “place” but a “process,” a point that underscores that many problems seen in EDs are the result of operational processes rather than design issues. Further, the primary factors of many problems are neither design nor operational, but issues that result from demographic changes, behavioral health and insurance deficiencies, and EMTALA requirements. For this reason, quite a few problems might not require specialty operational or design solutions if the overall health care system were doing a better job of addressing the larger issues that bring many patients to the ED.

Nonetheless, it is an important first step when health care organizations and designers work together to address operational and design problems through careful project planning.

Banner image courtesy of Frank Oudeman/NBBJ.

Share this:  envelope facebook twitter googleplus tumblr linkedin
Comment Follow nbbX
Next Page »