What makes sustainability more difficult to implement
in laboratories than other building types?
Laboratory design tends to be anchored in past practices,
with good reason. The number one priority in laboratory design
is, and will remain, occupant safety. Virtually no designer
would suggest, for the sake of innovation, an unproven building
technology that could jeopardize safety, and no owner would
accept it. This zero-tolerance for untested methods instills
reluctance to change. For that reason, sustainable design
strategies may be slow to find acceptance in the industry.
The techniques themselves must be adjusted to the requirements
of a high-risk environment. That's why the Labs 21 movement
is so critical.
Is some of the resistance due to misconceptions about
sustainability?
Misconceptions about sustainable design abound. Chief among
them is that sustainable design is a defined entity, an extra
fixture that can be attached to a building as it is about
to be constructed. In reality, sustainable design is a process
of integrating ideas, objectives and priorities for building
systems by the players responsible for their creation. True
sustainability is not driven by complicated or unproven techniques,
but by sensible decisions made early-on in facility programming.
Another misconception about sustainable design is that it
necessarily costs more. The sustainable approach may require
a greater commitment of time and a focused effort, but it
frequently costs less to implement than a conventional design.
Moreover, a guiding concept of sustainability is to evaluate
efficiency using total lifecycle cost. By that measure, initial
capital costs pale in comparison to human costs, and to the
potential gains from even modest improvements in worker productivity
that sustainable treatments often support.
Are sustainable design strategies radically new?
Not necessarily. Certain practices already common in conscientiously
engineered and outfitted laboratories are elements of sustainability,
such as using energy efficient equipment, rightsizing, and
selecting equipment and systems based on lifecycle-cost rather
than first-cost analysis. Yet applying sustainable principles
in a holistic way rather than component-by-component is innovative
and achieves far greater results. This is the approach that
we advocate, leading an integrated design process that teams
the building owner, designers, contractor, facility manager
and building occupants to derive the best strategies for each
project.
What are some of the design guidelines suggested
by the Labs 21 draft rating system?
Much of the document suggests a commonsense protocol that
can readily be followed to the betterment of the building,
its occupants and the surrounding community. Here are some
of the design considerations it promotes:
Site selection. At a basic level, a sustainable
site is one which takes advantage of solar access, prevailing
breezes and programmatic adjacencies to produce more efficient
lighting, ventilation and temperature control. It may also
be possible to select your site with a view of proximity
to public transportation and minimizing impact on wildlife
and the local natural ecosystem.
Water Efficiency. By their nature, laboratories
use more water than office buildings. In many locations,
water is readily available so few people have paid attention
to reducing usage or recycling. Yet efficiency methods are
quite simple and prudent, and include gray water collection
and reuse; rainwater recapture and reuse in irrigation;
drought-tolerant landscaping; and elimination of once-through
water systems for equipment cooling.
Energy & Atmosphere. On average,
laboratories use five times more energy than other buildings,
much of it in process equipment. Selecting energy efficient
and low-demand lab equipment is thus one of the most effective
and immediate ways to reduce energy consumption. Energy,
electrical and ventilation systems can benefit from recapture
and reuse potentials. The use of daylighting, for instance,
is often overlooked. Shared lighting concepts and dimming
controls for non-work surface lighting may also be feasible.
Materials & Resources. The selection
of "green" materials for building construction
may seem a low priority to the laboratory owner, yet many
people don't realize that much of the structural components
already in use are comprised of recycled content: structural
steel, concrete and gypsum, for example. By far the most
critical objective to the laboratory owner is building reuse.
Unlike other building types which may have an inherent 50-year
lifespan, laboratories tend toward obsolescence after a
mere 10-12 years as programs and research needs change.
Designing built-in flexibility or adaptability for future
building reuse is critical to sustainability.
Indoor Environmental Quality. This is
perhaps the most important priority in any laboratory design,
and the sustainable approach only further assures that appropriate
safety standards are met. The design team must accurately
assess risks and provide proper air dilution rates. Hood
alarms and room pressurization monitoring are very important.
Where appropriate, containment areas should be provided
to protect occupants and minimize risks of cross-contamination.
Proper placement of air intakes and exhausts is critical;
modeling and wind tunnel tests should be employed to predict
results.
Innovation in Design Process. The guidelines
propose to credit a laboratory for demonstrating innovation
in design depending on the impact to the project. We believe
that appropriate innovation will be the natural byproduct
of the team approach to sustainable design in which all
parties share ideas and understand risks.
[
back to top ]
|
