Designing flexible laboratories: how do we build for an uncertain future?

In a world of rapidly changing demand, how do we design buildings that can meet future requirements? Within the science and technology sector, this question is becoming increasingly important. With complex building specifications and rapid advancements in technology, the risk of obsolescence is significant. Striking the right balance between flexibility and overspecification is therefore critical.

While technology has made many aspects of scientific and technical development more accessible and cheaper, whether and how this will impact the buildings we design and deliver over the coming years is unclear. This is where early-stage engagement becomes essential: working closely with clients and partners to understand both immediate priorities and future uncertainties, and translating these into flexible, resilient design solutions. 

At a recent Cundall50 roundtable, we brought together voices from across the sector, including developers, funders, universities, contractors and designers, to explore this uncertainty. What emerged was a shared understanding that designing laboratories today is no longer about responding to immediate needs: it is about creating spaces that can adapt over time.

Chaired by Jonnie Allen, Partner, Cundall, the attendees included: Jordan Mason, Associate Director, Cundall; Simon Wyatt, Partner, Cundall; Nick Jones, Reginoal Director, Oberlanders; Will Fogden, Country Lead – Development Director, Kadans; Emily Slupek, Director (Oxford Project Management Team Lead), Savills;  Peter Ward, Executive Director, Abzyme; Sophie Dale-Black, Managing Director, The Portfolio House; Kate Wyatt, Preconstruction Leader, Laing O’Rourke; Andrew Levy, Head of Projects, University of Cambridge; and Will Hawking, Head of Life Sciences, Royal London Asset Management.

Why is flexibility becoming essential in lab design?

One of the strongest themes that emerged was the growing uncertainty around future requirements. Advances in AI, robotics, automFation and even quantum computing are already reshaping how scientific work is carried out, yet their full impact on space requirements remains ever evolving.

As Nick Jones noted, “The convergence of scientific disciplines, emerging technologies, and increasingly sophisticated automated systems is driving an evolution of laboratory environments, requiring adaptable infrastructure capable of supporting innovation at an unprecedented pace; one that is difficult to anticipate in the coming months, let alone over the years required to plan, design, and deliver research and discovery facilities.”

At the same time, buildings are expected to last far longer than the technologies and research models they support.

Sophie Dale-Black brought up the importance of suitability and availability of space, noting that not all lab environments can support specialist functions such as GLP or GMP manufacturing. She also highlighted the challenge faced by startups operating in shared environments: while shared lab space can reduce costs and improve efficiency, it raises questions around how to maintain confidentiality, protect intellectual property and create an environment that still feels distinctive and credible to partners and clients.

Flexibility was widely recognised as a key response. Practical design approaches that enable adaptation over time, such as larger floorplates, simpler layouts and modular approaches, were identified as ways to give buildings a better chance of keeping up with change.

How do you balance flexibility with overspecification?

While there was a consensus on the importance of flexibility, there was equally a clear warning against going too far. Trying to plan for every possible scenario can backfire, making buildings more complicated, expensive, and higher in carbon without clear benefits. 

Instead of building everything in from the start, a strategic approach that leaves room to make necessary adjustments came up as a solution. As Jordan Mason noted, this can create opportunities for “buildings that are more modular, extendable, reducing capex and embodied carbon, by designing them in the right way and making them flexible in the central core services.”

What is the role of sustainability? 

Another topic that came up was how closely sustainability is tied to the question of flexibility. If you overdesign, you don’t just increase cost, but also the project’s carbon impact. 

As per Simon Wyatt’s insight, “There have been a lot of commitments from landlords, occupiers, tenants, investors, but the sector is significantly behind in terms of its carbon aspirations and delivering them, which comes down to lack of data and also the variety.”  What is needed is a better use of data to drive more carbon-efficient solutions, without constraining the design process, but instead enhancing it.

Closely linked to flexibility is the need to design buildings that can be extended or adapted rather than replaced, as a way of addressing both sustainability and obsolescence. By embedding flexibility at both the structural and services level, spaces can evolve in response to changing needs without requiring complete redesign.

Why does collaboration matter in solving these challenges?

What became clear throughout the discussion is that no single perspective can solve these issues alone. Developers, designers, contractors, universities and occupiers all face different pressures, from commercial viability and technical complexity to user needs and long-term performance.

Early engagement across these groups is essential, particularly when delivering complex buildings that push beyond established models. Without this collaboration, there is a risk of misalignment between ambition, delivery and capability. 

Peter Ward also brought up the issue of language and communication beyond the sector for broader public understanding and support. “We need to speak in a language that makes sense to people who aren’t specialists in the sector: for example scientific entrepreneurs understand the potential of personalised medicines, but their practical implications on patient treatment and the physical buildings that are used for treatment and research need to be explained in simple, practical terms. Unless that potential lands with the public, we are going to struggle to get investors, politicians and the public to really put momentum behind it.”

This also speaks to the need for a deeper understanding of the different challenges faced across the science and technology ecosystem. From a contractor’s perspective, Kate Wyatt emphasised the importance of aligning early with client objectives and recognising the complexities involved in delivery.

Short-term thinking is no longer sufficient in a sector defined by rapid change. There is a need to focus on long-term adaptability, ensuring buildings remain relevant as requirements evolve.

Short-term thinking is no longer sufficient in a sector defined by rapid technological and commercial change. Laboratories must be designed to evolve, remaining resilient and relevant as research models, funding structures and technologies shift. At Cundall, we understand the complexity this creates for clients in the science and technology sector. We view uncertainty not as a barrier, but as a design condition to be addressed intelligently. This means designing with flexibility where it adds real value, avoiding unnecessary complexity, and embedding sustainability throughout the process. Through early collaboration, deep technical insight and a clear understanding of user needs and long-term sector trends, we support clients in delivering facilities that are not only fit for today but ready for the future.