Author: Michael Fortunato

By Principal & Partner Janet Morra, AIA, LEED AP

During the early days of the pandemic, we collectively embraced the notion that once vaccines became available, things would return to a “new normal,” and a mass return to the office would follow.

In reality, the hybrid work environment – long a staple in certain high-tech industries and made possible through advancements in technology – was mainstreamed. At the time, Margulies Perruzzi’s workplace strategy report, “Embracing the Hybrid Workspace,” affirmed the logic of transitioning from a traditional to hybrid model.

Our survey of 8,600 people across multiple business sectors revealed that 44 percent of workers planned on being in the office three days a week, and 25 percent planned on two days. Only 9 percent responded that they would return to a pre-pandemic office presence.

A Buzzword Is Back

It seems appropriate to resurrect a late-1990s buzzword, “paradigm shift,” because the pandemic is almost solely responsible for a fundamental change in the basic concepts and practices related to the traditional, corporate 9-to-5 in-office model.

Corporate managers who make real estate and facility decisions are facing the new reality of altered employee expectations. We know of one company that had an epiphany when they realized that the 100,000-square-foot building they own sits mostly empty, because in their new hybrid work environment, they have never had more than 50 people show up to work in the office on any given day.

So where are we now, and what does the future look like?

According to JLL’s third-quarter U.S. office outlook report, return-to-office metrics have trended upward this year, with most Fortune 500 employers gravitating to around three or more days of in-office attendance and pivoting away from fully remote hiring.

CBRE reported in their September office occupier sentiment survey that in the U.S., 65 percent of companies have a formal attendance requirement in place versus 31 percent one year ago. The average weekly office utilization rate varies by region; in the Asia-Pacific region 45 percent of respondents report their spaces to be highly utilized, while in the U.S. that figure is only 24 percent.

Many Look to Alter Spaces

We recently launched a new initiative to find out how our clients are approaching hybrid work, and the results align with what other industry leaders are reporting.

Sixty-three percent of our clients said had no formal hybrid or flexible attendance plan prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, 70 percent have one in place now.

Only 40 percent of our clients required attendance in the office a specific number of days per week, while 60 percent had “suggested” in-office targets. Meanwhile, 40 percent of our clients said they were an “office first” organization, with 20 percent identifying as “remote first” and the remainder saying they had a “true hybrid” character.

And while only 40 percent of our clients said they had reduced their office footprint, half said they had altered their office space in some way.

Occupiers’ Options Abound

There are many options available for implementing a full or partial return to the office, but there is no “one size fits all” solution. For the company I mentioned with a 100,000-square-foot, underutilized building, alternatives included selling it, relocating to a smaller space and designing it for how their staff works now, subletting half the square footage and redesigning the space they occupy, or keeping the building and initiating a mandatory in-office schedule.

Companies opting to redesign current or new space to bring workers back to the office are using various tactics. Creating a more home-like atmosphere might translate into softer seating and less dependence on fixed workstations. Now that virtual meetings are routine, private offices can be transformed into huddle rooms where one or two people can conduct an online session with acoustic and visual privacy. There is also a move towards even more collaboration and team space, as well as organized events, activities and amenities designed to appeal to the basic human need to be together.

Sometimes the reconfiguration or downsizing of space boils down to pure math: If a company requires everyone to come in three days a week on the same days, then there is no option to reduce seating or decrease space. The only way this type of hybrid policy would work is if attendance is staggered throughout the week, and it is easy to imagine how quickly this could become complicated and counterproductive.

In the end, the most successful solution is one that is uniquely tailored to a company’s business model, strategic plan and corporate culture. Ultimately, flexibility of both thought and design are the keys to cultivating a successful hybrid work environment.

This article was featured in Banker & Tradesman.

By Director of Lab Programming Jane Kepros, LEED GA

There are many misconceptions about lab design. In this article, we will delve into some common myths and explain why these may not be applicable for a particular project.

Myth #1: Lab Design Is Highly Regulated

While there are multiple regulations that need to be adhered to in an operational laboratory, clients are often surprised to learn that outside of general building, plumbing, and fire code requirements, there are often minimal (and sometimes zero additional) design regulations that are required solely because a space is designated as a lab. Most lab regulations have to do with the operations taking place within the lab, and the safe storage or transport of materials and waste in and out of the lab.

Of course, every project is unique. During the programming and planning phases it is best for clients to work with their design team and consultants to identify any special functions, hazards, or limitations of their site that may trigger special codes or regulations based on where they are located or the type of work they do.

Myth #2: You Cannot Use Certain Finishes or Products in Labs

Lab design involves the selection of many finishes and products, including flooring, wall paint, cabinetry, worksurfaces or lab benches, ceiling tiles or paint, piping, and plumbing fixtures. Many people think that certain finishes or products are never allowed in laboratories. This is generally not the case. Typically, certain materials are selected based on multiple factors including their durability, cleanability, resistance to chemicals or mold, sustainability, and availability. There are certain rules of thumb for using different materials that are considered best practice in particular environments, but they are rarely mandatory.

When selecting finishes and products, clients should work with their project, operations, facilities, and design teams to consider all the above factors, in addition to the upfront cost, including cost for both material and installation, and long-term cost, including maintenance or replacement.

Myth #3: The Rules of Lab Design are Absolute

There are many myths within lab design that are conveyed using “always” or “never” language, such as “sinks should always be located near the entrance,” or “wood casework should never be used in a biology lab.”  The reality is that it depends.

Often a client will make a request for their project design and use the “always” or “never” language themselves. This does not mean that all future clients think the same way. Their processes, safety program, material use, maintenance schedule, and even design aesthetic may dictate the exact opposite of the previous request. It is best to ask follow up questions to the client about why they have a specific preference and use that background information to inform your approach on future projects.

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should, and just because a material or product is available to use, does not mean that it is a good option. It is best to take multiple factors into account, weigh the options, and at the end of the day remember that except for code requirements, the client is the final decision maker. They are going to be the ones to work in and be responsible for cleaning and maintaining the space in the immediate future. The final layout and selection of products and materials must work with how they operate.

This article was featured in High Profile Monthly.

By Senior Interior Designer Jenna Meyers, IIDA, NCIDQ, LEED AP

There are many factors that prompt a company to begin thinking about whether they should stay in their current space or move. Chief among them is an impending lease expiration; significant changes in staff size; the need to cut costs; or a merger, acquisition, or consolidation.

A common misconception is that it is less costly to renegotiate and renew a lease that includes an allowance for renovations. This is not always the case when you consider the disruption to workflow that an ambitious construction project can cause, along with higher costs when there is no swing space to accommodate staff while their area is being worked on. This scenario would necessitate construction phasing, thus prolonging the project schedule and potentially requiring certain tasks to be performed at night or on a weekend, which means overtime pay. Even if there is swing space in your building or another building, there would be associated rental costs. However, if renovations are limited to simple cosmetic improvements like new carpet and paint, then disruption is relatively minor and short-lived, and staying may be the best option if a company’s current space will meet their needs for the length of a new lease.

Companies considering lease renewal versus a move should strongly consider working with an architect that will test fit their basic program to available space in feasible buildings, including their own. For new and/or small companies anticipating a stable head count, this traditional approach may suffice. But for larger and more established organizations or those with dynamic marketing goals and corresponding growth trajectories, detailed programming at the outset is to their ultimate advantage. Why? Because an accurate, comprehensive program is at the core of every successful facilities decision, particularly when it comes to one that has such critical first- and long-term ramifications associated with cost, productivity, and overall satisfaction.

In partnership with clients whose circumstances have led them to the “stay or go” point, that process involves conducting an in-depth programming exercise that incorporates a range of data, from operational information, spatial interrelationships and adjacencies, and current and projected head counts, to space usage and types, furniture, hybrid work scenarios, and goals surrounding brand, functionality, productivity, company culture, sustainability, and workplace environment, among others. Once the program and vision have been completed, the resulting information can be applied with high confidence to test fits.

We often work closely with brokers and tenant representatives to evaluate the pros and cons of each location and assist with the final building selection. A case in point is Boston Trust Walden, an independent, employee-owned investment management firm. They decided to move after realizing that their office could not accommodate growth. Reevaluating their space usage helped crystalize their objectives, which were to achieve a contemporary, functional space that facilitates individual and collaborative work, accommodates future growth, and manifests their core values. Opting to stay at One Beacon Street, the firm moved to the 34th floor. As an outcome of conscientious programming and collaboration, their new office space, which was expanded by 50%, features a design based on equitable access to natural light, sustainability, and transparency, reflecting key company principles.

With many such examples in our project experience, we can attest that workplace decisions built on a foundation that combines factual data and aspirational criteria are always the most successful.

This article was featured in High Profile Monthly. 

By Tim Bailey, AIA, LEED AP

According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, residential and commercial buildings in the United States are responsible for almost 40% of carbon dioxide emissions and use an almost equal percentage of the country’s energy for lighting, heating, cooling, and appliance operation. In Boston, 70% of greenhouse gas emissions are from buildings, prompting the state to take large strides to reduce this alarming statistic. Cities and towns across Massachusetts are now more stringent with energy codes and introduce ordinances of their own to combat this climate crisis. In fact, as of July 1, 2024, Massachusetts energy codes will become more restrictive, and some municipalities may choose to adopt energy codes that go beyond the Commonwealth’s.

Boston is leading the way for the region in support of all-electric, carbon neutral buildings. As lawmakers here and in surrounding municipalities pass legislation that dictates the path to carbon neutral building functionality by 2050, owners are faced with the challenge of evaluating, improving, and future-proofing their property assets. Pursuant to Boston’s Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure Ordinance (BERDO), buildings over 20,000 square feet must report their annual energy and water use to the city and reduce greenhouse gas emissions over time as stated in the BERDO regulations and policies and procedures adopted in January 2023. It is a game changer for developers, owners, and project design teams when it comes to designing a new building or renovating an existing one. Building owners will have three options; Update their buildings to comply, utilize alternative compliance payments, or ultimately face hefty fines for non-compliance.

With these new regulations there are a multitude of design considerations and decisions to be made. Architecturally, an energy efficient building envelope will take the strain off mechanical systems, so they don’t have to work as hard. Think triple-glazed curtain wall; increased insulation with attention paid to thermal bridging; use of recycled construction materials; and integrated lighting control systems. For mechanical systems, the goal is elimination of fossil fuels in favor of clean electric power. The issue now facing electricity providers is making sure they have enough capacity for these all-electric initiatives. Another tactic is switching from traditional building management systems to energy management and information technology that connects multiple building systems to optimize integrity and performance.

Other factors to consider are renewable energy opportunities such as solar panels, geothermal heat pumps, and off-site options. Up until now, geothermal may have been seen as a “nice to have,” but looking toward the future, that philosophy may change as we look at energy consumption. Geothermal technologies and solar opportunities go a long way to help reduce energy consumption of a building, thus reducing its electric load significantly. Smart building technologies can play a major role in achieving carbon neutrality and provide additional energy savings. For natural light control, options include automated shades, electric glass, and switchable films. For HVAC, energy efficient variable feed drives that can be installed in boiler pumps, condensers, water pumps, cooling tower fans, and chiller motor pumps could result in energy savings of up to 60%. Additional resources include lighting controls and tenant controlled plug-in electrical loads.

Meeting these new regulations comes with a cost—several costs, in fact, including, up-front inflated construction costs, technology upgrade costs, penalties for failing to meet regulatory requirements, and potential loss of revenue if your building does not meet prospective tenant expectations regarding local ordinance requirements or their cultural sustainability model. An April 9, 2023 Banker & Tradesman article by Steve Adams presciently addressed green leases, which align the financial and sustainability interests of building owners and tenants: “Typical green lease clauses include requirements for submetering of individual tenant spaces, cost sharing of capital improvements and agreements for tenants and landlords to share data on energy use.”

In preparation for a greener and cleaner future as set forth in BERDO and similar ordinances adopted by other municipalities, building owners, and developers need to begin to assess their buildings now. As architects who have been actively involved in retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency and designing new buildings to net zero and carbon neutral standards, we offer the following tips to help you get started:

1. Confirm energy loads associated with existing buildings in your portfolio
2. Determine the capacity of and cost for adapting buildings to accommodate converting gas service to electric
3. Develop a detailed master plan for the next 25+ years based on specific municipal requirements per building location to bring your buildings into carbon neutral compliance by the stipulated date

This article was featured in Banker & Tradesman.

By Jess Hamilton

One thing that all laboratories have in common is that the scientific functions within them are equipment driven. Equipment can range in size from small, tabletop vortexers, microfuges, scales, or even handheld pipetters to space-intensive items such as freezers, anaerobic chambers, fume or biosafety hoods, automation robotics, or custom equipment.

Whether the client is an established life sciences company or a modest start-up that has outgrown incubator space, the most critical element in planning a lab fit-out is an accurate equipment list. It is the central design tool for the project and is integral to the process of laying out a lab.

Before design begins, an architect and/or lab planner works with their client to define their space program that includes a room list with functional requirements, key adjacencies, headcount, and square footage. Once the basics are established, the next step is to identify what will go into those spaces. For a lab, it is crucial to define early and completely the major furnishing and equipment components, along with workflow preferences.

Typically, the client will provide the architect and/or lab planner with an itemized equipment list that includes the make, model, dimensions, clearances, weight, and intended location, as well as all associated electrical, plumbing, and gas requirements per manufacturer specifications. If this is not possible, or if the existing equipment list is insufficient for planning and design purposes, the architect and/or lab planner may need to survey the existing equipment or develop this list with input from the client based on future projections.

This information is then entered into an equipment matrix, an essential tool for tracking equipment through design, calculating the mechanical and electrical loads, and coordinating locations for outlets, exhaust, or plumbed utilities. Laboratory equipment requires many different utilities that must be coordinated with either base building or lab-specific systems, and sometimes even with other lab equipment. When the utilities are installed in the correct locations on day one, the client can begin operations on time and avoid costly delays.

A complete equipment matrix typically contains additional details that are especially useful to the design team. Examples include identifying requirements for associated computers, UPS or backup power, and specialty casework or storage. This is beneficial to the design process as it identifies any items that require coordination or special consideration.

For a start-up client advancing from an incubator environment to leasing their first new space, the equipment list is an informational linchpin. The design team will work with the end users or procurement team to help develop and maintain their equipment list throughout design and up until move-in day. The team will work with the client to populate the list with projected items through projected growth and workflows for equipment that may be purchased in the future. If needed, a specialized consultant may be brought on to help procure lab equipment.

A detailed equipment list provides the architect and engineering team with key information related to structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design that supports equipment function and performance. Close communication and coordination between all design disciplines on the team is essential for the systems to perform in harmony in support of the equipment. The design team’s job is complete when the equipment is moved into the laboratory and connected – ready for the scientists to get to work.

This article was featured in High Profile Monthly.

By Julia Donahue, IIDA, NCIDQ, WELL AP

In recent years, artwork has become an integral part of the design process, rather than a decorative afterthought. The goal of art in architecture is to improve the environment, provide wayfinding, and enhance the physical and mental well-being of employees and guests. The impact of art in healthcare design is no different, especially for behavioral health facilities. Art that is integrated into the design of a space from its conception plays a vital role in creating a positive patient experience and recovery. Not only does it provide an aesthetic escape and help with wayfinding within a space, but it can also help create a sense of community and calm, especially in a clinical setting.

Examples of beneficial uses of art in behavioral healthcare design include but are not limited to; paintings, murals, landscape photography, biophilia, and interactive sensory opportunities where light, touch, and sound are all part of the experience. Sensory experiences have been shown to help patients self-soothe when experiencing emotional distress. Biophilic installations, such as live plants and green walls, have been shown to help reduce stress in both healthcare and workplace settings, which is beneficial for patients and providers alike. Abstract and landscape paintings, as well as photography, can enhance patient experience, lessen recovery time, and improve staff morale.

While biophilia and plants may not be your initial thought when you think of art, they are an essential part of our natural world and are becoming increasingly common within indoor environments. A study has shown that spending 120-minutes per week in nature is tied to good health and well-being. With the pandemic, we have seen activities in nature and incorporating natural elements into the workplace becoming more common. Further studies have shown that enriching a space with plants can increase productivity by as much as 15%. Not only do plants help with productivity, but they can also help with stress relief as well. When surrounded by greenery, people have a more relaxed and tranquil attitude.

Incorporating art into the design of the expanded behavioral healthcare units at Sanford Medical Center in Sanford, ME was critical to the project. Photos of scenic Maine lighthouses and waterfront views were carefully selected to create full wall murals. The intention behind using these images was to help foster a sense of calm in patients and instill a sense of place and community between patients. Natural imagery and organic textures were also used, when possible, to help create a sense of calm. A relaxing color scheme was curated to avoid causing patients or staff negative emotions, as certain colors can evoke negative feelings. The group therapy room features a textured installation with primary colors, and customizable lighting and sound to generate a full sensory experience.

Incorporating art of all types into the design of clinical care settings, especially behavior healthcare facilities, is integral to creating a calming experience for patients and staff alike. We foresee this trend becoming only more prominent in the future.

This article was featured in High Profile Monthly