Payette

A Practical Approach to Natural Ventilation in Laboratory Buildings

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:51:45 GMT

Recently, Jacob Knowles of BR+A and I presented a workshop at the Labs21 2011 Annual Conference. An article about this workshop can be found in the latest issue of I2SL's Laboratory Design Newsletter or read it out below.

Natural ventilation has become a central strategy in sustainable buildings throughout Europe and is now becoming more prevalent within the United States. Natural ventilation, combined with climate-responsive design, allows spaces such as classrooms, offices, and common areas to operate without mechanical ventilation or conditioning during extended periods. Although typically overlooked, laboratory buildings need not be excluded; non-laboratory spaces can be designed to take advantage of natural ventilation, while still maintaining a controlled and healthy research environment.

The benefits of natural ventilation in laboratory buildings include energy conservation, increased productivity, personal comfort control, improved indoor air quality, and connection to the outdoors. Strategies to consider at the beginning of the design process should include optimizing building orientation, program organization, fenestration, thermal mass, and controls such as automated windows, fan assist, and mix-mode ventilation. More advanced strategies such as night flush venting, wind scoops, and solar chimneys can also be considered. Successful natural ventilation implementation requires an integrated design process, including a clearly communicated set of goals and metrics. Using comfort, cost, carbon, and containment (the four Cs) as performance categories provides a framework for team members to readily understand and participate in the process.

Comfort

Comfort is used in a broad sense, and includes aural, respiratory, and thermal comfort. Aural (acoustic) comfort is often considered separately, and is primarily concerned with outdoor noise pollution entering through operable windows. Respiratory and thermal comfort are often addressed simultaneously, but it is important to recognize that natural ventilation and natural conditioning are individual concerns. For example, it is common in Europe to use a mixed-mode system, where hydronic systems provide supplemental heating or cooling, while an air-based mechanical or natural ventilation system provides fresh air. Adaptive Comfort, as outlined in ASHRAE 55, provides the primary guidelines for evaluating thermal comfort in naturally ventilated spaces.

The Columbia University Gary C. Comer Geochemistry Building is organized into two distinct zones with different architecture and infrastructure. The laboratory side is designed as a high energy environment with complex mechanical and control systems, while the office side is designed as a low technology structure with operable windows and individual fan coil units.

Cost

The cost of natural ventilation should be evaluated from a holistic perspective. For example, elimination of cooling in the atrium and reduction in peak loads throughout the offices and classrooms can offset the cost of fenestration upgrades, added control sequences, and other items such as variable-speed drives on the atrium smoke-evacuation exhaust to allow fan-assisted air movement. In addition, life-cycle cost should be considered as energy savings can also help offset first-costs.

Carbon

Carbon is the metric of choice for environmental impact caused by energy consumption. Since mixed-mode systems often incorporate a changeover between mechanical operation and natural operation, it is critical to develop architectural, mechanical, and control-systems that work in concert to reduce energy consumption. The greatest concern lies in the introduction of large volumes of humid outdoor air that must be dehumidified when the mechanical conditioning system is engaged. To successfully reduce energy consumption, mixed-mode strategies to use may include occupant education and notification, supported by smart-controls that interpolate operational data and weather forecasts.

The Center for Biotechnology and Life Sciences at the University of Rhode Island is organized around a five-story naturally ventilated atrium that connects the research and teaching wings. Motorized window operators and variable-speed fans designed for smoke exhaust also serve as the infrastructure for the building's natural ventilation strategy.

Containment

One of the primary functions of a laboratory building is the ability to maintain occupant safety; the massive investment in proper laboratory planning, mechanical design, fume hood operation, and occupant education can easily be unraveled by a poorly planned natural ventilation approach. In addition, critical research may be impacted by fluctuations in temperature and humidity or contaminated by introduction of pollutants in unfiltered air.

Typically, air is transferred from more positively pressurized spaces to less positively pressurized spaces at door undercuts. The transfer air is as little as 150 cubic feet per minute, so sensitive pressure relationships that ensure proper isolation can be overwhelmed by rapidly changing wind pressures that might drive hundreds of cfm in or out of a space. In addition, operable windows can allow exhaust to be reintroduced into the building.

To mitigate these risks, each space needs to be properly categorized during the programming phase, listing pressure relationships and sensitivity to temperature, humidity, and contaminants such as pollen and dust. The level of control required by a given space, based on the potential risk of non-containment, will help determine where the space may be located and how air movement must be controlled. Sensitive areas that must be located adjacent to zones that are slated for natural ventilation often warrant a computational fluid dynamics study. Similarly, potential re-entrainment of exhaust must be evaluated by specialty engineering firms that perform wind-tunnel testing of scale models.

The Science Research Building at the National University of Galway, Ireland, is organized so the atrium, office suites, technical work areas, and perimeter corridors are naturally ventilated, acting as a "thermal sweater" for the mechanically ventilated laboratory suites.

As shown through the project examples, each situation merits a different solution, but one constant remains. To achieve holistic success, the integrated project team must approach natural ventilation in laboratory buildings with a clear set of goals and metrics, incorporating an iterative design process with timely analysis and feedback. Those who are up for the challenge will provide a healthier, more humane environment for building occupants, ultimately supporting the productive and creative community demanded by this critical and competitive industry.

3D Printing for Full-Scale Design Studies

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:49:57 GMT

I recently wrote an article that was featured on the blog 3D Printing in AEC. Check out the full post below or by clicking here for the article on 3D Printing in AEC.

As three-dimensional printing (3DP) technology increasingly embeds itself within the architectural practice as a viable representational technique, architects and designers must reconnoiter around the ideas and strategies that initially spawned the technology. Whereas 3DP’s current influence on the architectural design scene seems to be most characterized by the production of monolithic, mono-material, massing components, its success and influence originated on the engineering platform via the ability to produce accurate, complex geometrical prototypical, full-scale components.

Most significant to the architectural designer in the articulation of a physical study model is the ability to produce artifacts that facilitate and direct to the iterative design process. A primary catalyst for the success of this process requires dexterity and efficiency in the fabrication process itself. As designs are quickly modified and manipulated to fulfill evolving design intent, the fabrication process must efficiently anticipate and transform to accurately articulate new design ideals.

By deploying a scale shift likened to the prototypical roots of 3DP technology, the images below document a series of full-scale design studies investigating terracotta rainscreen cladding profiles. Of primary importance to the design team was the ability for the models to clearly convey the legibility of the profile from various distances and perspectives. Secondarily, the models proved useful in the comprehension of lighting consequences between the profiles. The combined curvilinear and faceted nature of the profiles clearly emphasizes the necessity of the digital fabrication process. Most importantly, the full-size scale of the models in conjunction with the limited scope of the investigation allow the fabrication process to efficiently inform the decision making process. Two-dimensional, digitally documented profiles were easily and quickly manipulated to generate simple digital extrusions, thereby keeping pace with design changes.

Scale is here at the crux of the success; clients and designers alike are drawn to and impressed by the resolution and mastered comprehension of a seemingly insignificant aspect of the design, articulated in a clear and beautiful way.

3D-printed prototype used in a series of terracotta profile design studies.

Vignette of 3D-printed prototype used in a series of terracotta profile design studies.

Sample of terracotta (left) with multiple 3D-printed prototypes (right) used to study terracotta profiles.

ChildrensBinney Section

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:43:46 GMT

ChildrensBinney Study

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:43:03 GMT

ChildrensBinney Model

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:41:59 GMT

ChildrensBinney Plan

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:41:07 GMT

ChildrensBinney Park

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:31:39 GMT

ChildrensBinney Elevation Site

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:27:32 GMT

ChildrensBinney Urban Landscape

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:25:13 GMT

Binney Building

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:14:21 GMT

The Binney Building for Children’s Hospital Boston is a ten-story urban infill building that contains much needed expansion space for the ED, Imaging, Same Day Surgery, Neurology, Pharmacy and four floors of new inpatient beds in alignment with the existing hospital. The building has prominent street frontages along Binney Street and the main drop-off for Children’s Hospital.

The Binney Street façade is a dramatic faceted butt-glazed curtainwall that greatly simplifies the complex urban texture that exists on Binney Street, while placing emphasis on a two-story pedestrian arcade along Binney Street that defines the ambulance entrance on one end and incorporates a pocket park on the other end.

Valerie Eno

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:55:31 GMT

Edin Kostovic

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:53:34 GMT

Contrast as a Contextual Strategy

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:18:15 GMT

Dialog Between Soloist and Ensemble

The most promising strategy to relate a programmatically significant building (soloist) to its context (ensemble) is to create a meaningful dialog between the two distinct entities. This counters the conventional notion that buildings are either contextual (ie. that reinforce and strengthen their surroundings) and are “fabric” buildings that blend in with their environments or are “object” buildings which intentionally disregard their surroundings and strive to stand out in the crowd.

Last month, I held an architectural forum to discuss this topic. See the presentation here.

A sequence of case studies illustrated how a complementary dialog between the object and its background can uncover the potential of a site, infusing it with new energy and life. The architectural studies, consisting of local and international projects, were complemented with case studies of site specific public sculptures that displayed similar attitudes in regards to responding to the specific qualities of the site.

Some discussion points were brought up during the forum:

Where in the diagram do we as architects want to be? Is our building always the best if it strives to strike a balance between object and fabric? And, do varying projects require different results?
Is this question valid only in an urban context? What about building in suburbia or in a rural setting? How does one use this strategy of contrast where there is little or no strong context?
Consideration of scale and massing seem to be key while placing a building in its context, but more often than not, the size of the building is driven by client or program needs. How should we as architects address this dichotomy?
In architectural education, is too much importance given to being a soloist as opposed to being part of an ensemble? And, what is the result when multiple soloists are placed together – which in architecture happens a lot. How does each soloist ensure that the overall result is making good music?
5. The degree of contrast is also a function of the program; most of the examples shown had a significant public/institutional program relative to the context—museums, design schools, town hall. Would the notion change to adapt to non-public functions?

Leave your thoughts in a comment below.

Princeton's Frick Chemistry Lab Featured in Architectural Record

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:37:29 GMT

Joanna Gonchar wrote about Princeton University's Frick Chemistry Laboratory in the February online issue of Architectural Record. The article highlights the building's highly efficient lighting scheme and how it contributes to the overall building's energy-saving goals. See the full article here.

Tradeline: Research & Research Facility Futures

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:32:20 GMT

2012 - 2014 and Beyond
Published January 17, 2012 on TradelineInc.com

The objective of Tradeline's 2012 forecast of research and research facilities futures is to identify the big ideas and important trends in research directions and research facilities that are expected to define research facility initiatives for the next two years and beyond. These forecasts involve overarching changes in the types and focus of research programs, design drivers, lab types, priority facility features, money and economic models, overall building plans, design concepts, and project success criteria. We also examine forecasts that were made two years ago and answer the question, "What has panned out in the last two years, and what has not?"

Tradeline’s second biennial Research & Research Facility Futures report is the collective work of ten North American research facility planning specialists who have spent most of their careers interacting with representatives of research institutions from all over the world about science futures. These are individuals who have the fascinating and special vantage point of gleaning insights and perspectives from a large number of thoughtful, forward-thinking scientists with views on what the practice of research will be like two years from now and beyond. The forecasters are:

Russell M. Chernoff, MAIBC, MAAA, AIA, NSAA
Founding Partner
Chernoff Thompson Architects

Steve Hackman, AIA, LEED AP
Principal
SmithGroup, Inc.

Kenneth A. Kornberg, AIA
President
Kornberg Associates

Jack Paul, RA, LEED AP BD&C
Vice President, Science & Technology
HDR Architecture, Inc.

Mark S. Reed, AIA, LEED AP
Partner
LABArchitectGroup

Jeffrey L. Schantz, AIA
Principal
Jacobs Consulting

Samir Y. Srouji, AIA, LEED AP
Associate Principal
Wilson Architects

Stanley Stark, FAIA, LEED AP
Executive Project Director
EYP Architecture & Engineering

Mark Whiteley, RIBA
Principal, Science & Technology Practice Leader
Cannon Design

Jeffrey R. Zynda
Associate Principal
Payette

All the forecasts in this document come from one or more panel members and have been reviewed and critiqued by all panel members, but there is not necessarily universal agreement among panel members on every point of view. The objective is to get points of view expressed, not to craft a document of 100% consensus. The final work of knitting together panel member inputs into the collective whole, therefore, is the responsibility of the editor, and that is me.

Steve Westfall, Ph.D.
President
Tradeline

RESEARCH RACE DELAYED, AND SOME NEW RUNNERS

2012 – 2014 and beyond

The U.S. and Europe will be marching in place with respect to research funding for the immediate future (two years) – few actual money outlays for major research facility initiatives. “Stalled” is the operative word, with the possible exception of the U.K. where some major investments in research centers will begin to take shape. The research activity profiles of China, Singapore, India, Australia, and some Mideast centers will rise as those locales work to create critical masses for what they hope will become centers for science and technology. This will eventually up the pressure on U.S. and European governments to put financial commitment, rhetoric, and public relations behind high-profile science initiatives to maintain leadership positions in the sciences, retain top scientific thinkers and doers, and develop technology-based industry – but probably not before 2014. The jury is still out on whether big investments in large scale research facilities in such places as Russia, the Mideast, and other relatively new entries to the high-profile research arena will actually capture significant amounts of research talent from the developed countries. At the state government level, no research races will emerge anytime soon due to financial woes that are in most cases more serious than at the federal level (states can’t print their own money), but a few economically-better-off states, such as Texas, will use their relatively okay financial positions to further their competitive positions in research at the expense of other states.

As the outlook for financial recovery improves, look for research-cluster competition to heat up not only from already established clusters (such as San Francisco, Cambridge, Boston, Toronto, and Orlando), but also from some new municipal players who aspire to be contenders and replicate the successes of others in gaining broad-based economic rewards from recruiting high wage earners to their cities and stimulating local development (New York City being a current example). Whereas municipal governments in general may currently be short on funding capacity, some aren’t, and there are many that have other important resources to contribute, such as political leadership, low cost land, infrastructure support, tax relief, zoning, start-up assistance, and project expediting. Cities with private universities, medical schools, and already developed science and technology hubs will have an edge here because of the absence of the political and bureaucratic overhang of state government.

Two years ago: “A research spending race U.S. vs. Europe”

In 2010, a majority of the Research Futures Panel members were looking ahead to the beginnings of significant research spending races in which the U.S. and European countries (as well as different states in the U.S.) would start ramping up their rhetoric, public relations, and financial commitments to further their respective positions of technological and scientific competitiveness and leadership. Clearly this has not happened – not between the U.S. and Europe, nor to any significant extent between U.S. states. The decline of federal and regional revenues, unemployment, and debt have weighed heavier and longer on research programs than most had expected. So, filling in the long-languishing research activity hole created by the shrinking of such great past but now decimated technology-creation giants as Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, and the like remains a distant vision.

THE GROWING HUMAN FACTOR IN RESEARCH

2012 – 2014 and beyond

Research focused on the perceived needs of humanity which has the potential of yielding successful results (cures, procedures, solutions, products, or market advantage) in a relatively short time period (less than 10 years) will dominate the funding scene. For the foreseeable future it will be health and diseases (the biggest segment), energy, food (and the security thereof), famine, communications, and the environment. “Needs of humanity” research will crowd out much funding for the kind of basic, breakthrough research that went along with the U.S. Apollo program, except where basic research can sell itself under the “needs of humanity” label.

Research activity will become an increasingly social process involving face-to-face collaboration within small interdisciplinary teams focused on targeted research problems. This will mean that the entire research work environment will become an integrated collaborative workspace – not just meeting rooms added to conventional office and lab spaces. Social mapping of how teams interact will become an important step in the facility planning process. The planning standard for competitive research work environments for such teams will include the entire work environment – internal visibility (openness), outside views, shared research tools, cafés, fitness facilities, child care, personal services, transportation/commute infrastructure, and access to housing and schooling. While digital communication technologies will be used for networking, the face-to-face aspect of research will grow in importance.

Big Pharmas will make attempts at “entrepreneurializing” their research environments with small, face-to-face teams, but they will find limited success simply because the facts are that they are large corporations with large-company bureaucracies; in their merger consolidations they are creating even larger research centers; and where success is found in small-group research activity there is an underlying tendency to try to “scale up” the small group model. Look instead for the Pharmas to focus on initiatives to build joint venture research linkages with leading researchers and small research teams at major research universities.

High-end artistic embellishments to research facilities of the kind that are already common in Europe have not spread significantly to the U.S. as predicted in 2010. But what will happen is that research buildings will grow in their importance as visible showcase investments for research institutions in which space will be sacrificed if necessary to incorporate the attention-getting design features that boost institutional reputations and attract top scientists. Therefore, look for research buildings to start feeling more like “five-star hotels.” Projects of this kind are showing up in the Mideast, China, and Singapore, and they will up the design ante for U.S. and European institutions.

Two years ago: “A new humanization factor in research”

Look for a shift in focus to the human side of science, and this will come in three areas: 1) shifting research priorities that focus on the needs of humanity, 2) research processes that are more social, and 3) high-end artistic embellishments to research facilities of the kind that are already common in Europe will spread to the U.S. via transatlantic personnel movement.

Research activity will be done with smaller research teams, smaller research centers (or at least making them feel smaller), and, with respect to the Pharmas, attempts will be made to inject entrepreneurism back into the pharmaceutical culture to compete with the “new stuff” that the startups are generating.

THE NEW PROCESSES OF RESEARCH

2012 – 2014 and beyond

Look for continual growth in the phenomenon of collaborative, worldwide, asynchronous (different time zones) research activities on common projects, but with the following limitations. First, the significant issues of intellectual property rights, legal barriers to cross-border technology transfer, institutional and corporate competitiveness, and national and regional economic development goals will limit disaggregated research activity to areas of basic and translational research where there are no perceived near term profits or economic benefits to be gained from successful research outcomes. Also, look for the collaborating parties to be situated primarily in already established major research centers or members of “star” research teams.

The most productive research teams will be small groups of four to eight people all located on the same floor or adjacent floors of the same building. While some use may be made of the latest and greatest real time video-conferencing and telepresence technologies to collaborate with individuals and teams in other locations, those technologies don’t tend to work well for people living in vastly different time zones, they are cumbersome to use (scheduling of video-conferencing equipment or rooms), and they are not mainstream to the way research teams work. Instead, researchers will be leading-edge adopters of the growing number of low-cost, easy-to-use, at-your-fingertips communication tools such as smart phones and iPads, and (where real time person-to-person exchange is called for) Skype, Web-X, and Go To Meeting. As for the electronic information exchange part of disaggregated research activity, look for a major move to Cloud computing applications to occur, not the growth in the number of more powerful scientific computing, information storage, and telecommunication nodes. The exception will be in the growth of scientific imaging and modeling which will increase the demand for scientific computing data processing and storage capacity.

Look for face-to-face contact with fellow research team members to be the central feature of research activity. Electronic communications tools will become increasingly powerful efficiency enhancers where face-to-face isn’t possible, but they will be supplemental to the main activity.

Two years ago: The new processes of research

Research activity will be increasingly disaggregated (multiple entities loosely connected) with research groups spread out around the globe working on common projects. Look for scientists in the lead, or parent research institutions to spend most of their time managing research activity being done elsewhere. Look also for research organizations to have a purchase appetite for the latest and greatest communication technologies to facilitate the disaggregated research model.

New electronic communication and computing capacity products are coming that will change at a personal level how research communities work. This involves very user-friendly (definitely not now, but coming) work collaboration and meeting tools, auto calendaring, search, scheduling, meeting arrangements, meeting notes, and notes storage, circulation and retrieval. All this will be run by central scientific computing and storage nodes, which will mean even more computing power and support of hardware and software systems.

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH

2012 – 2014 and beyond

Contrary to the 2010 statement that the U.S. lags in the area of translational medicine, the U.S. is actually now seen as a worldwide leader in the practice of translational medicine. Under the NIH’s new priorities and models for research funding, which now emphasize translational research in medicine, look for many more U.S. healthcare researchers to shift the focus of their research to translational projects and for research institutions to grow their translational research programs and establish new translational research centers and institutes. Look for the new NIH priorities, along with what U.S. institutions are doing in the translational research arena, to impact research plans and programs in other parts of the world.

Two years ago: Translational research

By European standards, the U.S. is behind in the practice of true translational medicine with the integration of research with patient treatment. Much of the translational medicine idea is still talk in the U.S., but in the UK it is action. Look for European processes and facilities responses in this area to be recognized and then adopted in the U.S.

RESEARCH FACILITY STANDARDS

2012 – 2014 and beyond

Space plans for research facilities will be dictated by new research processes and owner pressure to get more research program per net square foot – not the old planning standards of square foot per researcher and linear feet of bench space per researcher. The old planning standards will be discarded as a recipe for the over allocation of space. The new facility planning models will focus on the creation of innovation-focused environments, cultural transformation, new research processes, new equipment, new uses of equipment, the concept of “process stations,” and a general trend away from “wet” research toward “dry” or “damp” research. Those planning models will fully integrate office space, meeting rooms, circulation, shared equipment, processing stations, the concept that “collaboration happens everywhere,” and the future-proofing of lab buildings into research facility solutions for new buildings or major renovation projects.

Owners will still rely on metrics for rationales behind project plans and expenditures, but new metrics will be developed that will address end objectives related to return on investment, research processes, shared equipment, collaboration, flexibility, and overall business models for research buildings. Look for more upfront time to be devoted to project analysis and developing business case rationales using these new metrics.

For an increasing number of urban high-rise building projects which will be built in such select cities as New York, Boston, and Chicago, and some Canadian and UK cities, different metrics and standards will be developed reflecting particular challenges in construction costs, floor plate efficiencies, mechanical system distribution, high-rise team collaboration, and equipment sharing. However, for most research building projects, the default planning position is, and will continue to be for many years, four- to five-story buildings in park-like, campus, and suburban areas that have less constrained sites. In general, cost/benefit analyses for most research building projects will not in the foreseeable future significantly take into account the cultural, life-style, and financial business model advantages of city locations.

Two years ago: Research facility standards

Gone are the standards for square feet or ELF(equivalent linear feet) per researcher, but rather the model has now shifted to functional planning based around processes and equipment – that is, what is needed to do that particular research function.

There is much focus on high-rise lab buildings (anything over 15 floors) in Europe, the UK, and parts of Canada due to the need to create research communities where researchers and support personnel already live or can easily get to (good existing housing and transportation infrastructure). Such sites tend to be in cities where land is expensive. Look for this model to grow in the U.S. along with a new set of lab facility challenges involving small floor plates, floor-to-floor circulation, team collaboration, core facilities, flexibility, net/gross efficiencies... and the list goes on.

NANOTECH FACILITIES

2012 – 2014 and beyond

Now, two years on, we see that the word “resurgence” in the case of nanotech facilities was not the right word, but nanotech facilities are resurfacing, and will continue growing as increasingly common components of research programs in fields beyond those related to electronics, computing, and communications. The operative word now for nanotechnology will be “convergence.” Nanotechnology will increasingly be merged with many distinct technologies and methodologies from the physical, life, molecular, and engineering sciences to create a host of new, integrated-science pathways to discovery and solutions. Nanotech facilities will show up regularly in research building renovation projects, expansions, and new construction for a wide spectrum of research applications ranging from electric energy storage technologies, materials, and life sciences, as well as applications in commercial products such as cosmetics where the “scientification” of commodity products has significant commercial benefits in marketing and profits.

Two years ago: “A resurgence for nanotech facilities”

Look for a comeback in interest in nanotech facilities fueled by the search for the ultimate electrical storage technology for autos and non-peak electrical-generation storage where there are huge financial rewards to be captured and where many feel the solution lies in the use of nano-materials and nano-structures.

SUSTAINABILITY

2012 – 2014 and beyond

The European models for energy-use efficiency in lab buildings will set the standards into the next decade. As rising energy costs in the U.S. (where energy costs are far below those in Europe) create increased financial pressures, look for some U.S. pioneering cases of Environmental Health and Safety departments getting behind changes in lab infrastructure and operations. Such envelope-pushing showcase projects may involve new efficient methods of heat recovery from lab exhaust, in-lab chilled beams, displacement systems, some form of lab air recirculation, and an increasing number of appropriate situations where ductless fume hoods can be used. Look for increased use of energy-saving constant volume low-flow fume hoods and demand-control technology.

Beyond energy, do not look for “sustainability” to be viewed by scientists as a major planning factor. However, the label “sustainable” will become a standard requirement for project funding proposals and institutional image and as an overarching motivator, guide, and standard for increasing bottom-line economic operational efficiency. Look for LEED™ to be replaced by more holistic whole life green business assessments such carbon and net-zero assessments.

Two years ago: Sustainability

The U.S. is way behind Europe and other overseas regions with respect to sustainability for highly technical buildings. The main hurdle is the long-employed safety rule of thumb that dictates once-through air in labs. There are good design ideas “out there” that will overcome the once-through model, and look for these ideas to gain traction in the U.S. as organizations get more aggressive about cutting energy costs.

Big overseas projects are very serious about sustainability design and low energy use in lab buildings. Look for these projects to become the trend-setters and benchmark standards in terms of features and systems.

STREAMLINED PROJECT PROCESSES

2012 – 2014 and beyond

For major design firms, BIM is now commonplace – “it’s the way we do business.” But for owners and contractors, the use of BIM is still in transition, and it will take yet another two to five years for the industry to work out an understanding of the potentials, legalities, and the practical processes of BIM technology. Issues to be resolved include BIM-capable CMs wanting owners to exclude non-BIM-capable subcontractors, and for designers and owners to work out where the currently superior (for design of HVAC, curtain walls, etc.) CAD CAM programs fit in. For the next two years look for owners to be struggling to understand how BIM changes project processes and what to do with BIM-based documentation. The immediate outlook is for an industry disconnect between owners, designers, contractors, and subcontractors on BIM that will be in process of being resolved.

Look for conventional design-bid-build projects to remain popular as long as there is an economic climate in which owners can take advantage of competitive pricing. In spite of the continuation of design-bid-build processes, look for owners to increasingly seek ways to get the benefits of early designer/constructor team collaboration in the design phases, like Integrated Project Delivery.

Two years ago: Streamlined project processes

Especially with respect to research and other high-tech buildings, owners, designers, and builders alike are in transition with respect to BIM-type computerization of projects. Currently owners are asking for BIM-based documentation, but they are not familiar with the way that BIM-based projects change capital project processes. Over the course of the next two years, owners will become more BIM-process savvy, and they will start prequalifying bidders based on the bidder’s BIM capability and experience.

The old standard of design-bid-build for research buildings will change to give the constructor greater leeway in making efficient execution happen. This is a construction cost savings issue. Like the construction tower crane innovation of the 1960s that came from Europe, new project delivery models will come from Europe as well. One such innovation is the Design-Build-Novate model in which the architect works for the owner in the conceptual stages, then re-contracts (novates) under the builder for design-build execution. One streamlining feature here is the production of only those detailed design drawings needed to get the job done.

A WAVE OF BUILDING SYSTEM RENOVATION PROJECTS FOR NOT-SO-OLD RESEARCH BUILDINGS

Owners will realize that their not-so-old (1970s-1990s) research facilities are big energy hogs compared to the new stock of efficient research buildings. They will also realize that many of their not-so-old research buildings have already become victims of deferred maintenance and voracious eaters of maintenance and repair dollars. Also, because there is expected to be a shortage of funding for new buildings for several years, renovation will be where the main capital project action will occur. New technologies in HVAC design, such as effective chilled beams, will allow what were previously regarded as “impossible” renovations to occur within existing structures. Rising energy costs will yield attractive paybacks and ROIs for investments in renovating even not-so-old building systems. Look for a wave of investment activity in these kinds of projects where project rationales will be based on “best value” analysis, funding availability, and sustainability goals, and where logistical planning to minimize research program disruption will be as important as mechanical system redesign.

Two years ago: Not on the panel's list of predictions

Join the discussion in Tradeline's Research & Science Facilities LinkedIn Group.

Kevin Sullivan Elevated to the College of Fellows of the AIA

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:36:21 GMT

The American Institute of Architects has elevated Kevin Sullivan to its College of Fellows, an honor that recognizes architects who have made a notable contribution to the profession and to society. Kevin was recognized under the Design category (the others are Practice, Organizational Leadership, Government/Industry and Service).

Kevin is passionate about design for healthcare and science buildings: often under-recognized typologies with important meaning for society. His projects are transformative explorations of program, geometry, transparency, color and form embedded with nature.

Jim Collins sponsored Kevin's submission in his letter:
“Kevin has, for quite some time, been the consummate architect: articulate, giving, passionate about serving the needs of the people who occupy his buildings, considerate and ever attentive to his clients. He is an inspirational leader, a rigorous craftsman and a disciplined manager. He has succeeded on all the complex and sometimes contradictory requirements that are required of an advanced architect, and yet always the success is driven through his commitment, talent and passion for design.”

In his reference letter of support, John Wilson wrote:
“This effort has led Kevin to dramatically reconfigure the relationship of patient beds to outdoor places, so that missing arms and legs, fused spines, loss of vision, and the like are challenges overcome by architecture. The art of healing meets the healing of art!”

Maryann Thompson wrote in her reference letter:
“Kevin’s work has radically transcended the stereotype in healthcare design, and for that the profession owes him a huge debt. His designs are distinctly sensitive and creative in their formalism, geometry, and color palette. His are healing spaces, full of light and formal and material inspiration. At the same time, they are extremely pragmatic spaces, highly tuned to the dynamics of their program.”

Kevin will receive his Fellowship medal during the Investiture of Fellows Ceremony at the AIA 2012 National Convention and Design Exposition in Washington, DC. Congratulations to Kevin!

Sustainable Design: Assessing Thermal Bridges

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:08:43 GMT

In mid-January, I presented an overview of the significance of thermal bridging in façades and demonstrated how to integrate the programs THERM and WINDOW into the design process. The presentation showed how to utilize the programs to assess the heat flow in thermal bridges.

Common perception of thermal bridges is that they often have a small impact on the R-value of assemblies. However, research has shown that bridges can often decrease assemblies’ R-values by 40-60% and are becoming the dominant source of heat flow in contemporary envelope assemblies. To continue to improve the performance of our enclosures — an accessible, accurate method for heat flow simulations is needed to understand and improve our designs. The presentation covered a method to utilize the program THERM to assess thermal performance. Project examples of the analysis of window and wall assemblies were covered as well, in addition to the impact of thermal bridges on the R-value and building energy usage.

Check out the full presentation here:
Determining the Thermal Performance of Your Building Enclosure: Assessing Thermal Bridges

Innovation in the Workplace

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:37:25 GMT

The two of us attended an evening presentation at Steelcase/OE presented by Richard Benoit (Advanced Solutions Group, Steelcase R&D) and José Colucci (Director Health & Wellness IDEO, Cambridge Office). Benoit and Colucci demonstrated how much these two organizations have a deep understanding of behavior and how that affects space planning and any user interface.

Benoit began with today's trends and felt that everyone innovates or that they have to (they don't have to). He dissected organizational cultures to help identify the difference in organizations—if you want to innovate or you need to help clients innovate.

Case examples:

Qualcom: Everyone is responsible for innovation. New ideas are encouraged from everyone in the company. If your idea is picked, you become the "CEO" of that idea and project.
Boeing: A silo culture (not a shared culture) where innovation came from a group or department. There was a chasm between the engineers and those making the engines (neither thought the other knew a thing about what they did). They moved the engineers to a mezzanine inside the manufacturing hanger.
Nike & Apple: The pairing of the sensor in your shoe that allows you to store and sync your workouts and your tunes. Nike, the "do it" culture with premium gear, and Apple, who decided that we needed music on a device that took care of that gap and designed the iPod and founded iTunes.
Mayo Clinic: Shared culture, clinic culture. Patient Care Experience.

Colucci's presentation was a glimpse into the IDEO approach: human-centered design.
"People tell you what they think you want to hear."
"People tell you what they think they do but they don't."
And more truisms about interviews and user meeting's information.

Examples of how people at IDEO think:
Paul Bennett, IDEO – Dignity: "I am curious about understanding how to design more dignity into the work my colleagues and I do. We're lucky in that IDEO looks for opportunities to explore domains and problems where this kind of human emotion is central—and in many cases, we can help amplify that. People need spaces left for trust, mechanisms for human expression, compassion, and honesty to shine, ways to inherently allow their better selves to come to the forefront, to be in the moment." — "The Curiosity Chronicles" of Metropolis Magazine.

Wounded Warrior Home: The IDEO partnership with Michael Graves on homes better designed to meet the needs of returning soldiers (3 bedroom homes).

Why Social Innovators Need Design Thinking: This piece by Tim Brown has implication for our work.

New Children's Hospital in Haiti

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:20:06 GMT

It has been one year since the devastating earthquake struck Haiti and decimated a population that was already reeling from recent political upheaval and rampant poverty. Although work progresses, they are nowhere near re-building to the level before the quake—let alone re-building to the standards enjoyed in most of the western hemisphere. The Haiti Children’s Hospital will have a major impact on the reconstruction of the country and the future prosperity of the population. This effort is led by The Evangelical Alliance of Haiti, an organization founded by Dr. Jean Rigaud A. Antoine together with Sustainable Healthcare Haiti (SHH), a non-profit organization, (501c3 status pending).

This Boston based non-profit includes specialties such as healthcare planning and programming; architecture; structural, mechanical, electrical and waterworks engineering; sustainable design technologies; along with bricks and mortar construction. SHH is dedicated to helping Haiti through its long-term plan to build a Community Health Clinic (Phase I), an operating room and imaging suite (Phase II), and a 64-bed Children’s Hospital (Phase III). The master plan also includes construction of remote housing specifically for those suffering from easily transmitted diseases, or who have been orphaned—both are commonplace occurrences in a post earthquake Haiti. This multi-phased project will be built in Jerusalem, a suburb located on the outskirts just north of Port-au-Prince.

SHH is comprised of experts from the following firms: Foundation for Fundamentals, Payette, The Bristol Consulting Group, Carol R. Johnson Associates, Columbia Construction Company, Diversified Project Management, Fletcher Thompson, Steffian Bradley Architects, Buro Happold and various product and system manufacture’s and suppliers.

The project goals are:

Provide high-quality healthcare to children and young adults in Haiti
Provide equal access to healthcare for all Haitian children
Identify health issues affecting children and young adults; assist families in overcoming these issues for long-term health
Provide support spaces for both clinicians and researchers who are working outside of Haiti on childhood diseases and who would benefit from access to a particular patient population
Create a building that responds to its context through the use of local Haitian natural resources
Create jobs by identifying and employing the Haitian people where appropriate and feasible, during the planning, design and construction processes

The project is currently in the preliminary design phase:

Although located just outside of Port-au-Prince, the site is located in an underdeveloped and relatively remote location at the base of the Chaine des Matheux. The location allows very limited options for municipal infrastructure—therefore the project seeks to use passive sustainable strategies such as rain water collection, passive cooling, and local materials to provide a site specific solution.

Unique to the local needs, the project also includes space for families (who often travel for long distances and need to stay with their children), a community well, visiting staff facilities, and easily converted outdoor spaces that can be used to manage large scale health crisis.

An additional goal for SHH is the short-term and long-term creation of jobs to facilitate economic development in the area. The use of local labor, building techniques and available materials with the employment of local artisans and craftsmen are important aspects to the project. This also includes opportunities for local entrepreneurs to establish their own construction and support businesses that hopefully reach beyond the scope of the project itself.

Payette's Sho-Ping Chin and other members of SHH have planned a trip in mind this January to assess the site and establish local relationships to further advance the project. The next steps include:

Develop a schedule and a budget based on financial commitments
Establish protocols for communication, public health conferences, OSHA, ADA, and other means and methods of design and construction where needed
Begin site development and infrastructure planning
Identify local professionals for the design and construction process
Identify and establish a transition team who will assist with the operational issues and future management of the facility
Identifiy medical equipment budget and funding sources
Verify budget and schedule
Construction
Occupancy and facility operations

Sho-Ping Chin will be blogging live from the field in Haiti in the coming days, so stay tuned!

Iron Workers Share Beam of Hope at Boston Children's Hospital

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:50:19 GMT

The Binney Building for Children’s Hospital Boston was recently featured on Boston Fox25's news.

Read the full story and check out the video:

MyFoxBOSTON.com

The Binney Building is a ten-story urban infill building that contains much needed expansion space for the ED, Imaging, Same Day Surgery, Neurology, Pharmacy and four floors of new inpatient beds in alignment with the existing hospital. The building has prominent street frontages along Binney Street and the main drop-off for Children’s Hospital. The Binney Street façade is a dramatic faceted butt-glazed curtainwall that greatly simplifies the complex urban texture that exists on Binney Street, while placing emphasis on a two-story pedestrian arcade along Binney Street that defines the ambulance entrance on one end and incorporates a pocket park on the other end.

Ten Ways to Keep Your Revit Model Speedy

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:24:00 GMT

When working full steam for a deadline, it is easy to overlook some of the warnings Revit produces. If left unchecked for too long, you can amass 700, 800 or even 1000 warnings—which can make your model slow and cumbersome, because it keeps looking to see if the "problems" have been fixed. Take a moment to check how many you have in the model and the "quality" of those warnings. The most common, benign and easiest to fix are warnings about rooms separation lines overlapping each other or walls and warnings saying that two items have the same type mark. More complicated warnings like ramp slope and stair riser warnings should get reviewed right away, because they require more complex calculations and can have a bigger impact on performance.

Revit is capable of modeling many complicated things AND make them parametric (changeable). Yes, you can model every widget in that complicated piece of equipment, but should you? The answer is most likely no. If you keep the mantra of "Keep It Simple" and only model what you need/when you need it, you will wind up with a smaller, easier to use model. Beware of items that come from RevitCity or manufacturers, as they typically are modeled with a lot of detail.

Revit is amazing when it comes to creating views. You can create sections, elevations and 3D views with the blink of an eye. This is great, however, an excessive amount of views—especially 3D perspective or isometric views—can weigh a model down. Once you're done using the section you cut to quickly check something, make sure to delete it. Try keeping the philosophy of "name it or delete it" when it comes to views to keep your model in check as you go.

This means roofs, floors, ceilings, filled regions, ramps, stairs and any other item that put you into pink lined sketch mode. Complicated sketches using a lot of splines require Revit to process more information. This doesn't mean we shouldn't design wild curvy ceilings, it just means we should keep an eye on how that ceiling is impacting the file.

Don't be a hoarder when it comes to Revit families in your model. Keeping a small collection of items you are sure you'll need in the future is ok, but keeping every piece of casework you loaded just in case you need it someday is not. If a component you need accidentally gets purged, it can always be loaded back in.

When you create important things like grids or levels, the tendency is to want to lock them. Locking components to other components causes Revit to review the locked relationship every time you modify one of the items you've locked. When you have a lot of items locked, Revit has a lot of reviewing to do. Also, if one of your grids or special items gets moved out of position, you run the risk of moving all of your grids if they're locked together, catastrophically damaging your model instead of just having one grid out of place. Try using locks only when you're building families in the family editor.

Groups always seem like a great idea at first, but they wind up functioning differently than you expect them to. Use groups sparingly and with good reason. If it seems like your group could be made into a static family, it probably should be. Also, be wary of the types of components you're grouping together. Wall hosted items like sinks or doors can have issues when they're grouped away from their host (the wall), or in with non-wall hosted items like sinks or casework.

This is a huge source of file size and model performance problems in Revit. If you absolutely must bring CAD into a Revit model, always save a copy of the file first and clean out the riff raff. Delete any elements that somehow snuck off into no man's land, purge the file, run the "overkill" command and audit it. Make sure when you type in "Z E" for zoom extents that your drawing is centered on the screen.

When you bring the CAD in, always link it instead of embedding it. That way, you can find the file when you need to modify it, reload it or remove it. Embedded CAD has the knack of getting lost in your views. Sometimes it can get hidden and become difficult to find.

Images are almost a separate issue. When imported into the model, an image will maintain its original size even if you scale it down in the view. If you find yourself scaling the view down quite a bit, unlink it and cut down the image size prior to loading it into the model. Keep only the images you really need in the model and delete the rest using the manage images tab.

These should be used very sparingly, if at all. Modeling in an outside family is actually easier than using the family editor. Also, when you copy an in-place family, it makes another family. Before you know it you could have Special Casework 1 ,2, 3, ... 25.... Only use an in-place family if it's something you can't model outside of the project in the family editor.

Once you are done using a design option, delete it. When there are a large amount of design options in the model, Revit has to think about how each option influences the objects around it. The more you have, the more thinking that occurs and the slower your model.

OTHER WAYS TO HELP:

1. Saving to Central using the "Open - Save Page"
This is a simple legend view that will help your model open faster. Synchronizing with a 3D view open, especially one that has shadows on, will take a long time to open next time you want to access the file. (NOTE: If you are using Revit 2012, it has a tool under the manage tab that allows you to designate which view you want Revit to open the file with. Your Open Save Page or another small view should be selected for this task. While you're there, make sure to check out the Revit Best Practices section that Jason Grant wrote. There is a lot of valuable information in there.)

2. Auditing once or twice a week
Checking this box will give you a warning that it will take a long time. However, I've never seen it take much longer than the usual load time. If you are ever having issues with your file crashing or behaving strangely, try auditing it and see if that helps. Often times it will.

3. Compacting the file at the end of the day
It really isn't much slower than your normal save to central and can help keep your file trim and efficient.

4. Over writing the model with a fresh copy
This should be done by an experienced Revit user on an as needed basis. It will help clean up older back up and temp files, which will make the file size smaller.

5. Put linked models on their own workset
If linked models are on their own workset, you can choose not to load them. That will save you time opening and saving the model.

This post was inspired by Steve Stafford of Revit Op Ed's Article "File Size - A Red Herring?" and recent sessions with MyCadd.

Payette Festivus Eve

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:14:11 GMT

This past December 22nd, Payette's whole office came together to celebrate the first ever Festivus Eve. The celebration centered around several events around the studio including a table-decorating competition, a "Who’s That Baby?" guessing game, and a winter-themed Photo Booth.

Organizers Su Hong Chen, Miep Gieskes, Kristyn Hill, Liz Kankainen, Cortney Kirk, Andrea Love and Kacey Miklaszewski kicked off the celebrating in early December by decorating the lobby in cut-out snowflakes, creating a party countdown using humorous, photoshopped staff holiday images, and organized the office into table decorating teams that spanned the entire studio floor.

Six teams entered the table decorating contest:

Merry Christo-mas!
Champagne Wishes and Cheeze Whiz Dreams
Intents Christmas
Squadra dei Coordinatori della Costruzione de Festa
Burgermeister Meisterburgers
#O_XMAS (Occupy Christmas)

The winning team, Burgermeister Meisterburgers, swayed voters with their life-sized David Hasseloff cutout, matching black turtlenecks, German electronic music, and a buffet of German food and drinks. Squadra dei Coordinatori della Construzione de Festa came in a close second with a scaled model of a crane performing a tree topping ceremony, complete with a full spread of construction site food and drinks. Highlights from the other teams include O_XMAS’s drum circle, killer punch from Champagne Wishes and Cheeze Whiz Dreams, expansive tents from Intents Christmas, and a piñata for Jim Collins and Bobbi Haney to open courtesy of Merry Christo-mas!

When everyone was not celebrating at each team’s table they were busy taking photos at the photo booth, or guessing who was who in the baby photo guessing game. This very successful holiday event gave everyone at Payette an opportunity to flex their creative muscles socialize outside of their design teams, and get everyone in the holiday mood.

Payette

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:40:03 GMT

The Boston Globe & Healthcare Design Feature Payette's AMIGO Project

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:14:49 GMT

Payette’s AMIGO project which opened a few months ago has begun realizing the incredible benefits for patients and the surgical staff at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The first surgical facility of its kind in the US, the AMIGO project is a result of decades of planning and will serve as a research lab for other institutions.

This week, both the Boston Globe and Healthcare Design Magazine feature the project.

Read the full stories here:

The Boston Globe

Healthcare Design Magazine

Press Release 12/27/2011

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Spinal Cord Injury Long-Term Care Facility

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:42:42 GMT