Architecture for research

Abstract

Buildings should serve the people who live and work there. Buildings for research should encourage and symbolize communication, transparency and interactions among scientists.

As an architect, I am not specialized in any particular planning field. Together with my colleagues, we have designed schools, residential buildings, sports facilities, university buildings, and buildings for research in Europe and in North America. What these buildings have in common is that they serve the people who work or live there, and that they are integral elements of their built environment, entwined with daily lives of the people who live and work there, for better or for worse. Architecture is a prominent human artifact with which we can demonstrate the cultural and technical capabilities of our society. Buildings are therefore an obligation, a responsibility for us, for our clients and for society.

Architecture is a prominent human artifact with which we can demonstrate the cultural and technical capabilities of our society.

Buildings for research

When speaking of buildings for research, designers have quite different uses and users in mind: physics, biology, chemistry or computer labs, machine halls, clean‐room laboratories, imaging facilities, simulation rooms, and many more with different technical requirements. However, they all have one thing in common: people from different disciplines with similar expectations, wishes, and needs work there. Addressing their needs and wishes is one of the great challenges of design for many buildings that are still planned from a purely technical perspective. The focus is on work processes, climatic conditions, technical requirements, air exchange rates, and so on, which all can be calculated on expansive spreadsheets. Other qualities are often regarded merely as a “nice to have”. As a result, many research buildings look like a functional diagram.

Especially in the case of research buildings, the reluctance to innovate and to experiment seems all the more ironic.

We tend to concentrate on such quantifiable factors, but the qualitative aspects must also be discussed and implemented in design. This is a great challenge for designers because there is no clear yes or no, no right or wrong. These aspects cannot be computed, and people are reluctant to engage in what is perceived as a subjective debate, often erroneously dismissed as a matter of opinion. However, this is a short‐sighted view. There are actual criteria for qualitative factors, which can be evaluated by creating images and simulations of rooms or colors and discuss how these would influence our well‐being, creativity, and productivity. The same is true for light: we can even quantify its qualities. Different light sources and colors can increase our attention or make us tired, make us want to stay, but also make us want to leave. These qualitative aspects, the soft criteria, come second after the strong quantitative factors: costs, room sizes, air exchange rates, outside connections, etc. But it is these “weak” factors that ultimately turn a building into a landmark, that make it impressive, a success.

The human factor

A few years ago, we designed a new administration building in Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA, USA for the Genzyme Corporation, then an American biotechnology company (Fig 1). The CEO saw good architecture as a major advantage, especially in recruiting, and wanted a highly communicative, sustainable, and outstanding building. After its opening, Genzyme commissioned a study which found that not only was recruiting more successful, but employees had fewer sick days, they stayed longer with the company, and productivity was generally higher. Given that 80% of the Genzyme’s operating costs are for personnel and only about 8% for space with respect to their total revenue, the CEO considered this a major asset which had recuperated the additional costs of the building after only 2 years. Moreover, the Genzyme building was the first commercial LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Platinum building in the USA, which further reduced operational costs by saving energy.

Figure 1.

The Genzyme building in Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA, USA. © Anton Grassl.

Research is constantly changing and gaining new insights, which in return requires new methods and flexible buildings for multifunctional uses.

In most buildings for the sciences, however, such aspects fall short. This is a lost opportunity since scientists spend a large part of their working days in their laboratories, associated offices, or workshops. Their well‐begin and productivity depends on their environment, on good communication, and on interdisciplinary and collegial exchange. A working environment that creates identity, that motivates and attracts other, equally ambitious colleagues is thus beneficial for all involved.

It is therefore astonishing how little thought is spent on the human factor, on communication and on interaction when new research buildings are planned, that is, long before the actual design work begins. The standard approach is to use the basic setup of the last workplace plus a redundancy of technical equipment, air exchange rates, and cooling capacities. Previous concepts and structures are not to be questioned, not to be rethought. Even if the design had problems and caused disruptions, facility managers and clients prefer to stick with it because they know how to rectify it from experience.

Especially in the case of research buildings, the reluctance to innovate and to experiment seems all the more ironic. One may recall Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that “Invention breeds Invention”. In this context, the idea of implementing something that was developed 15 years ago in a standards committee on the basis of experience gained over past decades seems paradoxical. Planning and building are slow processes, and the freshly finished building will always be based on ideas that are at least 5 years old. Would we buy a 5‐year‐old smartphone and consider it state‐of‐the‐art? It is the same with planning. We could create novel things if we designers, together with our clients, were more courageous and flexible.

Encourage interdisciplinary work

Nevertheless, these obstacles can be overcome. We often earn the acceptance of interested and curious scientists, which they pass on to their colleagues. The development of new ideas and concepts is based on discussion, explanation, and understanding through which we approach the processes and necessities of research. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the processes are less rigid than is generally assumed, leading to the realization that research buildings should actually be flexible. Research is constantly changing and gaining new insights, which in return requires new methods and flexible buildings for multifunctional uses.

We are currently planning a new building for the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, Germany, which will incorporate all these considerations. Here, too, the focus is on designing spaces that enable interdisciplinary work of physicists, chemists, and biologists who conduct joint research on medical topics. The institute is rich in tradition and has produced five Nobel Prize winners during its 90‐year history. It is in a phase of reorientation and plans to add more research groups to its four existing research departments. The current location, a listed building from 1928, can no longer meet the requirements and the communicative aspects.

The building will be a new landmark and visible from afar as a high rise (Fig 2). It will also offer the researchers working there a special view over Heidelberg and the neighboring hills. The typology of the high rise generates challenges in terms of communication, informal meetings, and interdisciplinary work. The floor areas are relatively small and stacked with laboratories, offices, write‐up space, and meeting rooms on each level. Special measures needed to be taken to make the different levels seem naturally connected, so that researchers from different floors can meet each other by chance during everyday activities. Here, the entrance level and the conference areas are particularly important as informal, direct connecting paths between neighboring floors and meeting places. Overall, the building will have a contemporary, open, and transparent appearance.

Figure 2.

The planned Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, Germany. © Behnisch Architekten.

Buildings as symbols

Our office can now draw on decades of experience. We have designed and realized research buildings for universities and research institutions in the USA, Canada, and Europe, including the Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research at the University of Toronto, Canada, and, recently, the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences for Harvard University in Boston, MA, USA (Fig 3). This 55,000‐square‐meter building is located in the new Harvard campus in Allston, just south of Harvard Business School.

Figure 3.

Harvard University’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences in Boston, MA, USA. © Brad Feinknopf.

From the beginning, the building’s users and stakeholders, as well as the architects, were concerned with creating a highly communicative and flexible building. At the same time, certain challenges arose from the fact that it is simultaneously a teaching and research building. The School of Engineering also houses many different departments with different requirements: wet labs, computational labs, and imaging suites along with office space and testing areas. Interdisciplinary work and communication across research interests were to be encouraged—even required. Many of the research initiatives and institutes had previously been housed in different locations as self‐sufficient entities. In addition to the more functional areas and laboratories, the new building was envisioned as a hub of conversation and exchange. Paths were to cross and common access points and lounge areas were at the forefront of the design.

In addition, Harvard University also desired that the building demonstrates its purpose, that the new School of Engineering and Applied Sciences becomes a symbol to ensure a high degree of identification and represent modern teaching and research. Harvard University, like other renowned research and teaching institutions, is in constant competition for talent. This begins with the recruitment of particularly talented students, the researchers of tomorrow. Universities are also competing for the attention of companies in the region, including their research departments: this is noticeable around so‐called elite universities, such as Harvard, MIT, or Stanford.

Universities, as builders, have a dilemma. On the one hand, “Brick and Ivy” tradition is an important element of identification. Historicizing, backward‐looking architecture often seems to be the reflexive response here. On the other hand, Harvard is also a modern, sophisticated research enterprise with a progressive view of society. This, in turn, requires a contemporary appearance, especially since buildings for the natural sciences are hardly suitable for a historical architectural idiom. Together with our engineers and fabricators, we developed a new façade typology that, without movable elements, blocks out the direct summer sun while letting in winter sun and reflecting indirect sunlight into the depths of the building. The main result from the long discussions with our clients was an “intelligent” façade with curtain wall elements that were made using a completely novel manufacturing method, hydroforming.

However, there are buildings where one wishes to suppress its purpose and use in its appearance. For example, we won the competition for the NCT in Heidelberg, the DKFZ’s National Center for Tumor Diseases, with a design that did not focus on its character as a hospital building. At the NCT, researchers and clinicians work hand in hand as a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Patients are diagnosed, receive advice, and are treated on an outpatient basis. An atmosphere more reminiscent of a lounge or offices was desired. Comfortable rooms and interiors were the goal. At the same time, researchers should have the best possible working conditions in their laboratories.

Adapt the laboratory to the people

During the design for a new biology laboratory facility in the USA, we conducted a so‐called “Shadow Study”. Representatives of our office followed—“shadowed”—scientists in their daily work for several weeks to find out which elements of a traditional lab work well, which are most often used and what the actual distribution of work within a lab looks like. We found that the most elaborate and expensive spaces were used rather infrequently, whereas other areas such as formal and informal meeting spaces, the write‐up area, or office workstations were far more intensively frequented. Meetings not always used the designated meeting rooms but took place, more informally, in canteens, break zones, wintergardens, or tea kitchens. We also noticed that some of the newly built laboratories only functioned because scientists are flexible people who are able to make do with the environment they are given, that is, it is not the laboratory that adapts to the people, but the people adapt to the laboratory. What conclusions can be drawn from this for further design of modern laboratory buildings? The required technical specifications must of course be met and fulfilled. But the design of the less formal or regulated environments is at least as important because it creates the distinguishing features, it shapes identity and provides the very elements in a building that motivate the people who will work, teach, or learn there.

… exactly because research buildings have such an immense energy consumption, it is definitely worthwhile to address the problem in the design…

Thus, we must design more flexible structures, even for otherwise rigid laboratory buildings. In evaluating the Shadow Study, we came to the conclusion that an ideal laboratory should actually be arranged in a round shape. The compact, highly technical areas should be in the center and the much‐used work areas on the periphery. To me, this still seems more sensible than the prevalent arrangement of linear laboratory modules.

In designing the biology laboratory for the University of Toronto (Fig 4), we looked at a wide variety of use typologies, from wet labs to computational labs to offices and even student housing. It is hard to argue now for constructing such highly specialized buildings that can only be used for one purpose. In Toronto, this led to a decentralized shaft structure for building services that allows for section‐by‐section remodeling and alterations. In fact, by the time the building was completed, some planned uses had already been eliminated and others added, with wet labs converted to dry computational labs.

Figure 4.

The Donnelly Center at the University of Toronto, Canada. © David Cook, Tom Arban.

Sustainability

Another aspect is increasingly discussed when planning new research buildings: resource and energy consumption, and sustainability. This debate tries to reconcile two seemingly contradictory arguments. On the one hand, research buildings, especially laboratory buildings, are so energy‐intensive that it would hardly make a difference whether one attempts to mitigate the energy footprint. On the other hand, exactly because research buildings have such an immense energy consumption, it is definitely worthwhile to address the problem in the design, because even a small percentage of reduced energy consumption has a far greater impact in absolute terms than similar percentage savings in other types of use, such as housing. This is true in terms of reducing operational energy, but more and more it also becomes a consideration in terms of the grey energy, that is the energy we expend to build buildings. Because the closer we get to the goal of supplying operating energy from renewable resources, the more relevant the proportion of energy used for construction becomes.

At the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Science, all stakeholders jointly designed a building that achieved the highest designation of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC): LEED Platinum. CO₂ emissions are expected to be up to 50% lower than in a comparable building. In addition to the façade design, a sophisticated ventilation system contributes significantly to the reduction in energy consumption. But the Science and Engineering Complex is also exemplary in terms of its choice of materials: The design team investigated the material composition of 6,033 potential products and building systems and ultimately obtained around 1,500 materials that did not contain any chemicals from the so‐called “Red List”. This list contains compounds, such as PVC, PFAS, and PTFE, chemicals that have a harmful and pervasive impact on human well‐being and the environment. The interior spaces of the building received the certification “Living Building Challenge, Petal certification in Materials, Beauty, and Equity” from the International Living Future Institute (ILFI). Additionally, around 20,000 m² of green roof areas create a pleasant microclimate.

This result was possible as part of Harvard’s overall commitment to achieving fossil fuel neutrality for the entire campus by 2026, and to be fossil‐fuel free by 2050. Each of the buildings designed in Allston must make steps toward achieving these objectives. Other US universities have also committed themselves to CO₂ neutrality and are implementing these ambitions in their new buildings. For example, our office is designing the Vagelos Laboratory for Energy Science and Technology at the University of Pennsylvania: a new research building in which internal communication, identity‐creation, and opportunities for interdisciplinary cooperation play a special role (Fig 5). The institute is dedicated to finding innovative approaches for a more sustainable energy industry. As a result, its external appearance will express the nature of its function in a contemporary way.

Figure 5.

The planned Vagelos Laboratory for Energy Science and Technology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA, USA. © Behnisch Architekten.

When we finished research buildings, the scientists working there gave us considerable feedback that they appreciated the value of design, and our efforts to create a more sensible, humane, and environmentally friendly working place for them. As such, the building becomes a defining part of their local community and their public image. This is not only helpful for recruiting new staff, but good architecture also encourages communication, collaboration, and interdisciplinary work—which are all integral elements to create a vibrant and productive research community.

Supporting information

Review Process File

EMBO reports (2022) 23: e54693.