Industry collective discusses the role of refurbishment and adaptive reuse for Science

As the need for more science facilities continues, so is an emerging desire for city-based labs and a focus on climate action. As a result, reusing existing buildings for science is becoming more important.

Ramboll recently brought together 26 building owners, developers, and construction industry professionals to share the opportunities, challenges, and blockers with re-developing existing buildings for science. Here, we highlight the focus areas and enablers for maximising the creation of high-quality science facilities within existing buildings.

The flow diagram below shows a flow for decision-making about science on sites with existing assets. Location is the starting point and there are four key decision points (in orange text) that dictate whether an existing building can be reused for science.

Location is the starting point

Whether a facility should be considered for science depends primarily on the location. The days of ‘siloed’ science facilities with high fences are gone; collaboration and co-location are now key drivers.

The location is critical from a macro perspective - the city or region, and from a micro perspective - the locality and eco-system.

The discussions revealed that the desirability of a location also has an influence on how attractive a building is to science tenants and end-user scientists, and their willingness to ‘flex’ their brief to secure that location.

Is the building suitable for science?

The assessment of whether an existing building is suitable for science depends on the following factors:

• Scientific brief
• Structural frame
• Space to house and distribute MEP engineering services
• Logistical space inside and outside the building
• Power and utilities availability
• Space generosity in terms of floor heights and floor plate depths
• Cost and risk of re-developing the building including any heritage status

The discussions concluded that there are many existing buildings with the right ‘bones’ that could make good science facilities. Examples include high spec office buildings and industrial buildings with good structural loading capacity and generous service/ancillary space. There are also many examples that do not have the right fundamentals for re-use.

Discussions centred around the need to ‘think differently’ about the design from the outset of a project and ‘not to apply the same process as for a new-build'. Taking a new-build approach does not make the most of the opportunities of the existing building, nor allow detailed understanding of the risks nor their mitigation.

There was a suggestion that lab spaces will morph to accommodate more technological, automated and data-driven activities rather than ‘wet lab’ experimentation benching spaces. If this happens, the technical requirements of buildings to house science research activities will likely reduce.

Further work is needed to establish a minimum set of technical requirements, and industry collaborations such as Constructing Science play an important part in this.

Does the planning context allow redevelopment?

A building in a conservation area or that is listed will have greater restrictions. There is also a growing expectation for re-use of existing buildings unless it can be demonstrated not to be viable; this is expected to become stricter over time.

If scientific specifications of a re-developed building necessitate demolition and redevelopment, it was felt that, except in very specific circumstances, this should not outweigh the re-use of the building for alternative functions– this will be easier for asset owners with estates housing multiple types of uses, than for commercial developers who seek to maximise returns for each individual site.

Is there the user desire and asset value in a refurbished building?

Compared to new builds, there are fewer exemplar science facilities and case studies that allow the showcasing of best practices for refurbished science buildings. It was felt that the science sector has a cautious and evidence-based approach and the unknowns regarding an existing building’s structure and condition becomes a blocker to re-use. The industry needs to focus on sharing information, learnings, and experience and be open about project successes and challenges for the benefit of all.

Can refurbishments be better projects? Is new-build the only viable approach?

The group concluded that refurbishments of existing buildings can yield ‘inspirational science buildings’ that can be cheaper and quicker to complete.

The risk profile of existing buildings is different to new buildings and the understanding of how to manage associated risks and expectations is critical.

The experience of the entire design and project/client team applied early in a project, may show the best decision for the long-term use of a building is to demolish and re-build, but that should not be the starting point.

A combination of part-refurbishment and part-new build can be a good compromise; for example, to accommodate complex technical requirements in specific zones of the building.

Key aspects that need further consideration included:

• Impact of consumption taxes such as VAT on refurbishments, as this can significantly disadvantage retro-fit over new-build.
• Attitude to risk and who holds it needs to be sensible; contractors’ appetite is currently lower for refurbishments making projects less attractive to bid.
• Areas within a refurbished building that are being retained and unchanged can end up without contractor warranties.

Conclusions

The science sector is an exciting area with unprecedented recent investment. Responsible development means more refurbishments for science will be needed. With the right building, team approach and good decision making, the end result can be high quality, inspirational science building development.

This series of industry discussions has shown there is significant interest across the construction industry in re-using existing buildings for science, but the solutions are not always easy and experiences must be shared for the benefit of all.

With thanks to all participants in the round-table discussions:

• Adam Trigg – STFC
• Allen Beever - CPC
• Andrew Blevins – Prologis
• Andy Levy – University of Cambridge
• Bernard Conroy - Ramboll
• Dan Cole – Biomed Realty
• Dan Crane – Biomed Realty
• Darius Umrigar – NBBJ
• Emily Slupek – Savills Project Management
• Emma Goodford – Knight Frank
• James Dexter – Savills Project Management
• Liam Nicholls – Creative Places
• Luke Kelly – British Land
• Lynden Spencer-Allen – Ramboll
• Nathan Morgan - Gensler
• Neil Turvey – UCL
• Nick Blevins – Knight Frank
• Nick Flanagan – CB3 Consulting
• Patrick Watson – 3PM
• Raj Deb – Perkins Will
• Phil McDonald – Oberlanders
• Rebecca Mortimore – Ramboll
• Richard Jones – Oxford University
• Rob Roodhouse – Imperial College NHS Trust
• Subjit Jassy – Pioneer Group
• Will Fogden – Kadans