| |
Planning Processes and Challenges for Owners
Daniel L. Hightower, AIA, BBH
Design
There is a need to improve processes for the up-front planning and
programming of laboratory facilities. This is evident from a report
by the National Academy of Sciences committee on Laboratory Design,
Construction, and Renovation (a National Research Council committee
funded by the American Chemical Society).
There are also stewardship responsibilities that must be addressed
early in the planning process. Issues that are not government funded,
but are critical to our nation. Issues that in some cases are mandated,
in others recognized with full Federal support, and others recognized
with partial support.
Both of these issues, planning and programming improvements, and
stewardship responsibilities, create challenges for owners.
Challenge—Best Practices for designing and constructing
laboratories:
How do you obtain the best building to meet your needs? This was
the question asked by the National Academy of Sciences committee.
The NRC highlighted the need for improving up front planning, and
establishing good communications early in a research building project.
There are two approaches to planning and programming for laboratory
facilities: The more common approach is to provide planning for
the facility before the award of the Design contract, and have the
Architect provide programming services; and the second approach
is to complete both planning and programming prior to the Design
contract. It is the opinion of the author that the latter is a more
successful approach to planning research facilities. This approach
allows the owner to have a better understanding of their role and
responsibilities. From the beginning, the Owner must have an understanding
of how they influence project costs.
Challenge—Being good stewards with respect to unfunded
mandates, but also issues that haven't been considered as unfunded
mandates:
What does the Owner desire/expect from the A/E in terms of Sustainability,
or Healthy Buildings? These are unfunded issues, and so why would
an Owner seek consideration for these issues during times when they
are concerned about making ends meet? This is a challenge for society
as a whole. We have the knowledge and the vision for reducing resource
usage, but we lack the knowledge of how the built environment affects
us.
Findings:
Challenge—Best Practices for designing and constructing
laboratories:
- How do you obtain the best building to meet your needs? This
was the question asked by the National Academy of Sciences committee.
And of course the answer to the question is the Owner wants a
quality project…one that meets their needs, that is on time,
and within the budget…but it is more than this…it is
a project that follows a process, a road map, that allows the
owner to make difficult decisions…choices leading to a compromise
in design due to budget constraints or program changes…a
process that allows for change. My experiences with NIH, and more
recently with the University of Kansas Medical Center, have shown
the benefits of early planning and programming, and creating the
processes that allowed for good design.
- There are two approaches to planning and programming for laboratory
facilities: The more common approach is to provide planning (including
needs assessments, budget, and scheduling) for the facility before
the award of the Design contract, and have the Architect provide
programming (more refined needs assessment, budget, and schedule)
services; and the second approach is to completing both planning
and programming prior to the Design contract, with the Architect
providing verification on the programming. Experience has shown
the latter to be the preferred practice for laboratory facilities.
- From the beginning the Owner must have an understanding of how
they influence project costs. The time when the owner has the
greatest influence for the least cost is in the beginning…with
the cost increasing over the life of the design process and the
owner's influence decreasing…where design changes can be
made up to design development for limited cost, but beyond this
point, cost can increase dramatically.
Challenge—Being good stewards with respect to unfunded
mandates, but also issues that haven't even been considered as unfunded
mandates:
How do we create the desire of Owners to give consideration to
the issues of Sustainability and Healthy Buildings? EPA and the
Department of Energy have done an excellent job of highlighting
this issue…they have developed useful tools, and marketed the
need for their use. They have supported such programs as Labs 21,
and the Green Buildings Council.
There is a need to expand the sustainability challenge…our
need to design and build efficient laboratory space. This requires
looking at the program needs with a goal of building minimal space.
Often we design and build more space than is required. In laboratory
facilities we need to look at how programs can be flexible, as well
as how they can share space. This is particularly true for laboratory
support space. This is a very difficult issue to address with User
groups who have concerns about sharing space, but more importantly
sharing equipment. The benefit of designing space in this manner
is two fold, saving resources to construct facilities and their
operations. An example of how this can be accomplished is the design
of the new KU Biomedical Research Center.
I would like to offer another challenge….our need to be concerned
with how the Indoor Environment affects our health? We are lacking
"hard research" by the Medical Research Community with
respect to how our built environments affect our health. We need
Indoor Air Quality standards, that can be incorporated in to guidelines
and codes…as well as building operation certification…and
monitoring programs. An example of this is our programs for the
provision of potable water, and sewer systems.
Labs21 Connection:
The first challenge of doing more planning up front allows the
owner's representatives to promote the "Labs21 Approach"
to designing sustainable facilities…to educate the consumer
on the benefits of being good stewards.
The second challenge of being good stewards with respect to sustainability
and healthy building issues is a view of expanding current Labs21
initiatives, and starting a new one that should follow the "Labs21
Approach," ….our need to be concerned with how the Indoor
Environment affects our health. We are lacking "hard research"
by the Medical Research Community with respect to how our built
environments affect our health. Yes, we have codes and standards
for Life Safety issues, but I contend that life and death issues
are different from health issues. We have "soft research"
on the issue, and this was how the standards for our indoor air
requirements were established…the development of the Comfort
Zone, and the number of air changes. Since the Oil Embargo of the
1970's we have turned the indoor environment into a living conduit,
and at times reduced life support while increasing pollutants. Corrections
have been made, but these are based on Best Practices advice and
not Medical Research.
Biography:
Daniel L. Hightower, AIA, is an architect with BBH Design,
the firm's Director of Programming and Planning. In previous positions
he has been the Director, Facilities Management, for the University
of Kansas Medical Center; the Associate Director, Division of Engineering
Services, for the National Institutes of Health; and the Senior
Technical Advisor for Architecture and Engineering for the US Public
Health Service. He helped write the AIA Guidelines on Biomedical
Research Laboratories, and the AIA Guidelines on Hospitals and Healthcare
Facilities. He has served on the White House Building and Construction
Committee, and chaired the National Academy of Sciences committee
for Architecture and Architectural Engineering, and the NAS committee
for Building Design and Construction. He received his B.S. in Building
Design and Construction from Pittsburg State University in 1971
and his M.S. in Architectural Engineering from the University of
Kansas in 1974.
Back to the Agenda
|
