case studies: catalysts to innovation

Aleta BuddMichael Prattico

Genzyme CenterCase Study

Catalysts and Innovation

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

What factors can be added to conventional development

practice to achieve an innovative building?

i

This element may augment the results in some fashion, or create an entire typology not previously seen. Often, the reaction may not have been expected, though the results are highly desirable.

Thus we focus on the positive catalyst as a method of investigating complex project delivery. This revolves around a small num-ber of key catalysts defining direction in the overall path of a “reaction.”

These catalytic elements are essential to in-novation. While they in themselves are not innovative, a concept reliant on the improve-ment of an existing object or condition, they provide the impetus to reach beyond estab-lished methods and outcomes.

A catalyst is an element that affects the rate of change in matter, without itself being subject to change.

Typical Reaction Scheme.

1. x + C = xC

2. y + xC = xyC

3. xyC = Cz

4. Cz = C + z

ii

In 2003, hundreds of buildings were con-structed in Boston. Of these, a handful stand out as remarkable. Only one, howev-er, achieved a LEED platinum rating. While the sustainability of the Genzyme Corpo-rate Headquarters has been emphasized in numerous published reports, this often distracts from other notable aspects of the building.

While the plaque in the lobby might set the building apart but it can be argued that, even without this certification, the building would attract attention – it embodies innova-tion – the question is how? While it’s easy to tally inventiveness in physical aspects of the building, this does not get to the processes or people that put them there. On paper, and

INTRODUCTIONthrough the paper trail, the Genzyme Center defies its own novelty, appearing much like any other complex developer driven project.

It becomes apparent then that there were factors in individuals and institutions driving change within the framework of the typical development process. This case study ex-amines the adjustments made to the con-ventional development process that resulted in the Genzyme Center and the ways new buildings might derive their own definitions of success from that result.

DISCLAIMERThe authors of this case study recognize the achievement in the Genzyme Center of USGBC LEED Platinum Certification. However, nearly all of the contemporary documentation on the building focuses on analysis of the sustainable building systems. While technical achievements are important, this study is concerned with process. This investigation examines a much broader spectrum of factors and

protocol in order to gain a deeper understanding of the relationships between all the team members involved. In addition, there are numerous intangible factors to be be considered as factors that shaped the process, and therefore serve as the basis of any lessons to be learned.

iii

The conventional development process has remained unchanged for a considerable amount of time. This has not allowed for innovation within the process or by the individual players.

A commercial development project is not generally viewed as a desirable product, particularly when in close proximity to resi-dential areas. Popular opinion might say that developers focus solely on the bottom line, without regard for less tangible factors, such as pleasing aesthetics and negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood.

This stereotype allows for a substantial amount of transformation in the nature of the project type: the developer and project team have the ability to become catalysts in their own right to produce a building with positive impact. This can also be achieved within the delivery process as professional advancement.

Conventional practice typically does not in-clude the future tenant as part of the planning and design process unless it is a prototype for a retail chain. Single-tenant commercial development projects are designed and built without consideration for eventual unique fit-out and cannot always cater to a specific corporate mission.

This means that the building may not func-tion as necessary for the employee health and productivity or the image of the com-pany, because they have to be shoe-horned in. The inclusion of the tenant early in the process not only creates possibilities for in-novation within the boundaries of conven-tional development, but also makes the re-sult more appropriate for the users. a. Developer

b. Architectc. Contractord. Tenante. Building Product

Fig. 1. Typical process

Fig. 2. Atypical process

a+

b ce}

a+

d(bc)ed}

Process Information

The conventional development process has remained unchanged for a considerable amount of time. This has not allowed for innovation within the process or by the individual players.

Process Information

iv

Above: Typical office floor plan driven by net leas-able space and rational structural grid.Below: The floor plan of the Genzyme Center driven by access to daylight, openness, and interaction between employees. Design architect Behnisch, Behnisch & Partner believed the central space re-lated directly to better communication, and wanted to establish a “Mediterranean atmosphere” with the various plantings.

Above: A typical office building facade.Below: The facade of the Genzyme Center showing correlation between the interior use and exterior expression. For example, the well-lit areas at the lower left and center reflect the open space of the atrium within.

Above: Typical corporate interior condition.Below: A typical office in the Genzyme Center. A common anecdote about recruiting employees for Genzyme is that once CEO Henri Termeer shows an interviewee the offices, they are ready to begin work.

v

The history of any project is more than the events within the scope of construction: The longer sequence of factors and decision-making are generally regarded as un-related, but it is useful to examine them in the case of a successful project.

A project can be viewed as the snapshot in a long series of decisions. While this is cer-tainly true of the design and construction process, one must realize that a building is indelibly tied to its site, and that the site itself bears the markings of history upon it.

The effects of time and events on a site do not have to be overbearing and grudgingly acknowledged, though. The specificity of the context can be a catalyst for innovation.In the sense that the process is a drawn-out reaction, the inclusion of these factors inherently alters the outcome, although their influence may not be evident at the comple-tion. However, as any student knows, it’s not possible to attain a correct answer without all the proper components in the equation.

For example (see facing page), in the case of the Genzyme Center, the firm was attract-ed to expanding to this location because it matches their corporate direction. Prior to

this, the developer was attracted to the site because it was one of the last remaining parcels in the area. This was due to the fact that the previous owner had been unable to revitalize it over the past 20 years. This was in turn because of its large-scale contami-nation, and the associated cost. Finally, this was related to that particular area of East Cambridge being developed early on as an industrial zone.

There are numerous catalysts for this phe-nomenon that are outlined in the timeline shown later in the case study. It is useful, and not just in this project, to identify the connections between prior events, people, and physical characteristics in the site that may have helped to shape the nature of the resulting building. It is possible, as well, to map related elements from Europe, consid-ering the location of the design architect, en-gineer, and some vendors.

vi

a+

d(b1 b2 b3 c)edx

x = factor

xn

e

∑ }}The initial atypical process equation has to be revised to include the multiple architec-tural consultants (b). Their work is directed by the tenant within the constraints of the original concept, and later contracts. How-ever, their involvement in the project creates additional elements, such as timezone dif-ferences, which affect the ongoing delivery process.

At this point, the real estate developer (a) has taken a less prominent role, yet still monitors progress to intervene on valuable line items in the project. From an outside perspective, this is imperative for the building to achieve the integration intended by the original de-velopment proposal.

The summation figure at left ( ∑ ) describes the cumulative layering of factors (x: people, events). This begins at a much earlier time in history, and extends through the creation of the project itself (e), and in fact beyond.

a+

d(bc)ed}

a. Developerb. Architectc. Contractord. Tenante. Building productx: Outside influence

This inherently affects all the figures in the previous atypical equation as a whole. The reaction, now influenced by such catalysts, produces a building which is more than the sum of intentional decision-making during the prescribed fast-track schedule.

Without this influence, one may postulate that the development process would yield a conventional result: an office building that is not unique, which any corporation un-concerned about representing their mission might occupy. Though a long sequence of connected events may produce multiple op-tions for tenants, it’s useful to examine the factors that lead to Genzyme Corporation occupying such a well-known facility.

Process Timeline

1813 Boston Porcelain & Glass Co. becomes first industrial development in East Cambridge1890s Charles River filled in to connect East Cambridge with surrounding area, used almost exclusively for new industry.1916 MIT relocates campus to Cambridge.1918 Cambridge Gas & Light begins gasification operations at Kendall Square site.1950s Cambridge Gas & Light ceases operations, and buildings on site are demolished. Site is acquired by Commonwealth Energy.1976 Cambridge Community Development Department commences urban design study.1978 East Cambridge Riverfront Plan.1981 JUNE 8: Genzyme Corporation is founded in Chinatown, Boston.1982 The Athenaeum Group purchases nine acres at One Kendall Square.1983 Two buildings are completed as part of One Kendall Square redevelopment.1985 Henri Termeer appointed CEO of Genzyme Corporation.1989 CambridgeSide Galleria opens.1993 Lyme Properties founded by David Clem.1998 August: Lyme Properties acquires 10-acre parcel in East Cambridge. Urban Strategies begins master planning for Kendall Square development.1999 April: Cambridge approves PUD for Lyme’s masterplan. September 23: Competition No. 1 Jury held - Buildings C, E, and G. September: Larkin Petition for moratorium submitted.2000 January: 18-month moratorium commences. March 6: Competition No. 2 Jury held - Landscape design. April 26: Competition No. 3 Jury held - Building D (Genzyme Center). Ellen Dunham-Jones hosts Lyme Properties at MIT architecture review. June: East Cambridge Planning Study commences. August: Genzyme signs lease on new headquarters building. September 13: Competition No. 4 Jury held - Buildings A and B. November: Groundbreaking for new Genzyme Center.2001 Spring: Genzyme project budget established. June: East Cambridge Planning Study is completed. Construction commences at the Genzyme site.2002 Mass. Technology Collaborative awards Genzyme $321,750 grant for photo-voltaic system and reflective metal wall panels. January: Construction of parking garages commences. July: Structure of the bulding is completed. October: Building is weathertight. Fit-out commences.2003 Genzyme Environmental Management System (GEMS) instituted. May: Furniture installation; Base building is substantially completed. October: Building is complete. Commissioning commences (two weeks). December: All employees have moved in.2004 Genzyme shuttle bus service launched to decrease pollution, fuel use, and traffic congestion.2005 June 1: BioMed Realty Trust acquires Lyme Properties’ Cambridge portfolio for $523.6M. December: The Genzyme Center receives the LEED Platinum rating from the USGBC.

Contents

Integrated delivery process

page 21abcd} }Yield of atypical development process

page 27edx} }

Exceptional tenant involvement

page 17d} }x2

Master planning & Competition

page 7} }x1

Contextual information & early master plans

page 1} }

LEGENDa. Developerb. Architectc. Contractord. Tenante. Building Productx. Contextual Factor

Conclusion, page 33. Sources, page 35.

1 Case Study: Genzyme Center

East Cambridge has a rich history in regards to real estate and development. Initially an island, it was the subject of one of the first large scale, speculative land purchases in the United States.

Because of the abundance of waterfront property, the area proved ripe for industri-al development. In 1813 the first industrial endeavor, the Boston Porcelain and Glass Company, found a home along the Charles River. However, it was not until after the Civil War that the industrial character of the area was established.

In the 1890s, the decision was made to fill in a portion of the river bank, connecting East Cambridge with the surrounding area. This had a significant impact on the area as the newly filled land was used almost exclusively for industrial development. This created an isolating ring of industrial development, sev-ering ties with the riverfront, an issue with

which East Cambridge is still contending to-day as it attempts to manage its growth.

Until World War Two, industrial development dominated the area because of relatively in-expensive land cost and an influx of cheap labor due to immigration. Beginning in the

The history of the Kendall Square area has been defined by industrial development. Like many other such sites, the years after World War II saw a

significant decline in the industrial base for the area. The resulting wasteland created a rift between the Charles River and the historic fabric of Cambridge.

Site Background

2

1950s and continuing through the 1970s, however, a variety of factors contributed to the decline of East Cambridge as a manu-facturing base. Foremost, land and labor costs rose diminishing the financial base for industry. In addition, urban renewal shifted the focus of the building industry and put al-ternative demands on land use.

The combination of these dynamics lead to widespread blight. Where the residential de-velopment and mix of uses had previously been isolated by industrial development, they now sat in a sea of abandoned ware-houses.

In the 1980s, a research-based economic boom renewed interest in the area. Fueled by the proximity to the Massachusetts In-stitute of Technology, which had moved to its current Cambridge location in 1916, East Cambridge became a prime location for in-stitutional development.

Zoning at that time was relatively permis-sive, and allowed for the demolition of sev-eral industrial blocks to make room for office buildings. At the same time it remained lax in protection for the surrounding residential neighborhood. A planning initiative put forth in 1976 had latent fruition in projects such as the CambridgeSide Galleria and One Kend-all Square and set off a boom that remained largely unchecked until the 1990’s.

Because of this zoning, the scale and use of projects allowed during the boom reinforced the isolation set in place by the large scale industrial development of the area. This cre-ated distrust among residents and served to isolate the community, detracting from amenities such as open space, parks, and access to the river. In the late 1990s, a call was put out to revise zoning practices in an effort to mend the rift between the river and East Cambridge.

The site on which the Genzyme Center is built closely follows the narrative of a typi-cal building in East Cambridge. In 1918, the Cambridge Gas and Light Company inhab-ited the site. In the 1950s, the company left the site and its facilities were razed. The site sat open for the next 40 years and was em-ployed primarily as a parking lot before pur-chased by Lyme Properties.



East Cambridge Riverfront Plan (1978)

The intent of this plan was to provide a re-source for any parties interested in a 40-acre, mostly vacant industrial area in East Cambridge. The city wished to transform the site into a mixed-use neighborhood based on this plan. This was to include retail space, residences, offices, and institutions, along with necessary public uses. The plan was to provide significant tax advantages for the city, as well as a plethora of new jobs.

At this time the area had seen closings of nu-merous industries, which adversely affected the physical landscape in East Cambridge, from the riverfront to the residential fab-ric. Committee meetings in the mid-1970s determined that a solution needed to be brought to the table, and in 1976 the Cam-bridge Planning Board directed the Commu-nity Development Department to commence a comprehensive urban design study.

The study examines the historical back-ground of East Cambridge as a generator for planning policies. Landmarks with ar-chitectural significance are also outlined in the report, with attention to the reasons be-hind certain styles. Overall, East Cambridge constitutes a range of vernacular elements based upon particular industries, which are no longer in operation. It is the sea of indus-trial land that threatens the diversities of East Cambridge during this time period, charac-terized by a loss of connection to the river.

The study identifies the abundance of per-missions available in industrial land that does not consider proximity to residential neigh-borhood. The zoning for the area does not encourage the types of development that were intended; rather, it does assure quality new development, provide for viable indus-trial activity, or distinguish physical location.

The 1978 plan outlined five goals:1. Increased employment opportunities;2. Expansion of the city’s tax base;3. Enhancement of the physical environment;4. Conservation of existing social/economic diversity;5. Exploitation of diverse potential of Charles River.

Nine prerequisites were alsoestablished:1. Create 16-acre open space system as an armature for new development;2. Use Lechmere Canal as central public space bounded by residences and retail;3. Reduce blight at Lechmere Square with new transit station;4. Redirect traffic away from Kendall Square and East Cambridge;5. Convert Cambridge Parkway into park/access road by shifting traffic onto a widened Commercial Avenue;6. Protect and enhance historic resources of East Cambridge;7. Rezone current industrial land to incorporate development objectives;8. Work with existing businesses, landowners, and developers to improve mixed-use conditions;9. Protect community from uncontrolled land-use modifications and offer housing rehabilitation and subsidy assistance.

Site Background

Various master planning attempts were undertaken to address numerous issues caused by the massive

undeveloped post-industrial area in East Cambridge.

Prior to 1998, none were successful.

4

Implementation of the plan dictated a multi-phased approach extended over eight years (into 1983) on 26 different sites in the area. Land acquisition and development was to be entirely privately funded, with public involve-ment only in guidelines and limited techni-cal assistance. The City retained power of eminent domain but did not see a reason to use it. Cost of the revitalization was to be in excess of $60,000,000.

Top: The study included many references to Euro-pean precedents, particularly English urban planning

and design characteristics. The architectural profile of Castle Combe served as example for important

public spaces.

Right: This romantic sensibility was in contrast to other strategies that were inclusive of large-scale

superblocks. Note the use of the Unité d’Habitation typology, complete with sculptural rooftop elements,

in the proposed view of the Lechmere Canal area.



East Cambridge Development Review Process and Guidelines (June 1985)

East Cambridge Development Plan (1985)

As the Lechmere Triangle redevelopment neared completion, the need to refocus the process for monitoring growth in the area was identified. There was concern that the new development did not relate to the ex-isting neighborhood. In addition, there were questions about the ability of the develop-ment to absorb further impact of traffic pat-tern and infrastructure revisions.

The document states that new development must be compatible with the existing context of East Cambridge. It lays out guidelines for open space, pedestrian circulation, service facilities; retail, housing, office and parking in the Planned Unit Developments (PUD)1. Features such as height, scale, massing, streetwalls and setbacks, silhouettes, and details including a wide range of architec-tural components.

2. Floor-area-ratio is defined as the ratio between the total floor area of all levels of a given building to the area of the plot of land on which it sits.

1. This refers to a large-scale subdivision of land used for unified developments containing compatible uses.

East Cambridge Zoning Petition (June 2001)

This document incorporated concepts pro-posed in the Citywide Rezoning Petition: encouraging more housing in a mixed-use environment and reducing commercial den-sity and traffic growth. The petition also aims to create zoning recommendations unique to the specific characters and needs of the individual neighborhoods (East Cambridge, Wellington-Harrington, and Area 4).

This petition was the basis for the East-ern Cambridge Planning Study (ECaPS), and laid out recommendations on multiple PUDs, modifying district nomenclature and Floor-Area-Ratios (FAR)2 for commercial and residential development. The revision to FAR values was intended to restrict over-scaled commercial or industrial development.

The petition outlines development rights of Transfer Districts, which encourage reduced commercial density close to existing resi-dential areas, while moving commercial and mixed-use development to areas that are closer to transit and more fully developed. The proposal includes two districts, one a Transfer Donating District (TDD), and the other a Transfer Receiving District (TRD).

Above: The East Cambridge Development Plan out-lined new areas for interventions in the area, mainly focused on the riverfront. The Genzyme Center site is listed as “Future Development Area.” Even at this time, new large-scale development would sever con-nections between the river and residential areas.

6

Eastern Cambridge Planning Study – June 2000 - October 2001

In September 1999 the citizens submit-ted a petition for an 18-month moratorium on commercial development over 20,000 square feet and residential development more than 20 units. Their concerns were:

1. Encroachment of commercial into residential areas;2. Increasing traffic congestion;3. Real estate price escalation;4. Inadequate public open space.

This study was produced by the City of Cam-bridge – the Cambridge Community Devel-opment Department and the Eastern Cam-bridge Planning Study Committee (ECaPS). The rezoning petition was halted in order to find results of study, and a moratorium be-gan in January 2000.

The study identifies Amgen, Inc., Biogen, Inc., and Genzyme Corporation as three firms producing five of the top ten biotech products in the country (the products ar not named in the study). This fact, coupled with the proximity to MIT (large skilled workforce) and transit opportunities to Boston and Longwood Medical Area (LMA), translates into low vacancy rates and very high rental rates and land prices.

The study does not identify the Genzyme Center location as a “transition” area, so there are no direct recommendations for the proposed buildings.

The study proposes new street-level retail at the Genzyme Center site, and two adjacent lab buildings. It places an “activity generator” across the street from the site, now the pro-posed location of a performing arts center.

Right: The focus areas of the study are exemplary of the diverse nature of East Cambridge, a result of

urban planning and infill beginning in 1830. Note how the central “transition area” envelopes the residential district: this swath is indicative of the old shoreline of

Cambridge.

Far right: The block patterns of the area , as expected, closely follow the diversity of focus areas.

The superblock typology of the Genzyme Center site was to be addressed by Urban Strategies under the

supervision of Lyme Properties.

The goals of the rezoning recommendations are as follows:

1. Encourage housing as a predominant use in new development;2. Create mixed-use districts close to transit infrastructure;3. Reduce automobile trips from new development;4. Increase public open space;5. Create better transitions between residential and commercial areas; and6. Create an urban environment that encourages pedestrian circulation, connections between neighborhoods, commerce, transit, and open space (including Charles River).

Thus the 2001 petition proposes various zoning changes to achieve tighter confor-mity with neighborhood and citywide goals. The petition includes all proposed changes to the existing text and maps.

0 300 600 900 1200

scale in feet

Residential Block

Transitional Block

Super Block

New Block Pattern

Block Pattern

Wellington/Harrington

East Cambridge

Area IV

Transition Area

Kendall Square

North Point

Transition Area 2

Residential Neighborhoods

Transition Area

Volpe Site

North Point

Focus Areas



Master Planning (beginning with site acquisition in August 1998)

Lyme Properties’ documentation states that previous planning studies failed because they did not have a key development partner, with adequate resources and determination, at a time of political and economical optimism. The city, for example, was not able to deal with expense of remediating the site - even in the previous master plans, public contri-bution had been relegated to a minimum. A local utility company (the previous owner), was also not able to successfully redevelop the site over the span of 20 years.

The new master plan was intended to cre-ate a dense, mixed-use model for life sci-ence laboratory development, strengthening bonds between private research communi-ties and local academic institutions (MIT). It was also intended to promote an active and creative urban environment for a younger

workforce, anchored by new residential con-struction nearby.

Lyme instructed their planning consultant, Urban Strategies, to examine the broader context, identifying connections and op-portunities that might be a benefit for both the city and the project. This would naturally create a result closely tied to its surround-ings, addressing many of the concerns of the previous master plans. Urban Strategies produced a conceptual plan detailing the site as a crossroads between the Charles River and certain nodes existing within East Cambridge, such as Kendall Square, Cam-bridgeside Galleria, and the MIT campus (plan at bottom right). These were the kinds of connections that the City of Cambridge had been looking to establish since the late 1970s.

To assure a quality outcome, Urban Strat-egies tested multiple concepts on the site,

distributing the new construction according to a larger organizational concept in each, such as open space, or the Broad Canal. These iterations were as follows:

This process enabled Urban Strategies to determine the optimum layout of the streets and necessary program. Each plan was then thoroughly studied by the local community and city agencies.

Significant development in the Kendall Square area was catalyzed in 1998 when Lyme Properties purchased 10 acres of brownfield. The subsequent planning

and design processes marked a unique real estate development benchmark that resulted in a successful product.

THE SITE• Area generally known as Kendall Square - MIT campus, Charles River East Cambridge • 10 acre former coal gasification plant • One of the last large development sites in Cambridge 14

• Challenge - create a context for a new neighborhood• The paradigm - a Crossroads linking the neighborhoods, the campus, the River and Longfellow Bridge15

• Not a Science Park but a real piece of city• Greatest possible mix and synergies – labs, office, residential, hotel, retail, cafes, restaurants,

entertainment, culture, active recreation• Surprise, delight and room for the unanticipated

16

8

The plan includes numerous components to improve the existing conditions, as well as establish successful elements of urban de-sign within the local context:

A “traditional” block design to con-• tinue existing urban patterns;Block pattern allows for future de-• velopment;Creation of five new connections to • the existing street system, to allevi-ate traffic congestion;Streets are maintained privately, • allowing greater flexibility in traffic standards, but private property is not delineated;On the interior of the site, streets • and pedestrian ways merged to promote a richer street experience.

The master plan included a description of all the buildings to be completed:

Building A: six-story laboratory• Building B: laboratory with atrium • and retail spaceBuilding C: performing arts center• Building D: 12-story life science • office building with atrium and retail spaceBuilding E: 230-foot residential • tower with attached 120-foot blockBuilding F: parking access pavilion• Building G: ground-level retail, of-• fices and lofts above

The proposed building massing is highest at the Kendall Square side of the site, de-creasing as the site approaches the exist-

ing residential portion of East Cambridge. As stated previously, this was intended to allevi-ate concerns about the overscaling of new development and the associated impacts on nearby residences.

Lyme pursued Planned Unit Development (PUD) for site, allowing for some zoning relief and flexibility, as well as an inclusive planning process that invited the input of municipal services and the general public. The Cam-bridge Planning Board gave the PUD ap-proval in April 1999, based upon the quality of the master plan and Lyme’s clear commit-ment to establishing high design standards as part of the plan, which would continue in the selection process of the numerous archi-tects involved.

“...Genzyme’s participation in the transformation of an abandoned lot into a vibrant asset was seen as consistent with its corporate mission of improving individual lives through the proper application of technology.”

THE PLAN• Simple but eccentric ‘grid’• Open-ended street network forming six small blocks – average size one acre• No corporate name - blurred edges• Flexible framework that allows for innovation and hybridization• Deliberate minimalism - ensure coherence but leave ample creative space for design handoffs

17

• Build to street lines on central spine with active ground floors• Access to 2 UG parking areas in public spaces

18

• Generally mid-rise with higher landmark elements

• Tight relationships between buildings and pedestrian spaces

• Intimacy and focus in a hospitable pedestrian-oriented micro-climate19

Facing page, bottom right: The importance of the Broad Canal and the connections to armatures of

existing green spaces nearby.

This page, right: Master plan of the development showing the “spine” for access to ground floor retail,

parking garages, and public spaces.

This page, far right: Computer model showing the massing of the proposed development.

- Nancy Solomon, Architectural Graphic Standards

Masterplanning & Competition


A brownfield site is one which has been pol-luted by contaminants, usually due to the re-sult of an industrial past. As previously not-ed, the parcel purchased by Lyme had been a brownfield for 50 years before its success-ful redevelopment. While development had been suggested for the site, the extent of contamination and significant financial ob-stacles involved in remediation had prevent-ed these schemes from taking fruition.

In 1998 however, the Massachusetts Brown-fields Act was signed into legislation. The law provides financial incentives and liability relief for the development of brownfield sites in the state of Massachusetts. In addition to environmental aims, it focuses on economi-cally distressed areas such as blighted post industrial areas within cities. This legislative break allowed Lyme to proceed with the de-velopment of the plot.

The remediation process is highly intensive

and involves significant excavation of pollut-ants and site re-stabilization. Because Lyme Properties wanted not only a cost effective solution that would allow for construction during remediation, but one that would also be permanent, the remediation was phased and carried out according to future use. For example, the underground parking was placed in the most contaminated portion of the site because any latent pollutants would have a lesser impact on cars than people. Also, the parcel for the Genzyme Center, the first building constructed, was remediated first.

While the remediation ultimately cost $10 million, the efforts have proved worthwhile. The site has not only been developed, heal-ing a gap in the midst of development, but the use of a brownfield helped attract Gen-zyme as a long term, highly involved tenant and provided significant motivation in mov-ing along the LEED path.

As for the specific site itself, we are excited to partici-pate in the transformation of a former brownfield site into a productive, vibrant mixed-use area. We strive to be good neighbors, and we hope that the thoughtful design of the project will make this area a real addition to the Cambridge communityGordon Brailsford Jr., Senior Project Manager for Genzyme

10

Here’s how ISS worked:A mixture of portland cement, • bentonite, and water was mixed and injected into the impacted soil, immobilizing free-phase NAPL in the subsurface. Soil mixing was accomplished using a 10-foot (3 m), crane-mounted auger.The mixed soil columns were • overlapped 35%, ensuring that all impacted soil was treated.ISS treatment resulted in • immobilization of contaminants of concern within a 20-foot (6-m) thick monolithic, solidified mass with a volume of more than 100,000 cubic yards (80,000 m3).Nuisance gases generated during • treatment were collected and treated to prevent atmospheric release.

Solidification/stabilization resulted in:Greatly reduced movement of • NAPL by binding the contaminants within the soil matrix with a cement-based S/S additive.Lowered hydraulic conductivity of • the treated soil by two orders of magnitude, preventing leaching of contaminants.Improved groundwater quality • by preventing groundwater from coming into contact with source material.

Technical Remediation Facts

In Situ Solidification/Stabilization (ISS) helped meet the developer’s goals of a quick, safe and cost-effective cleanup so-lution, while at the same time eliminating risk to human health and making way for expedited redevelopment.

Below: Soil mixing using an auger.

From “Phoenix Award Winning Kendall Site Arises from Cement Treated Brownfild Site” by Christopher Carleo, Thomas Clark and Charles M. Wilk



Design Competitions

Lyme Properties made an early commit-ment to retaining a separate architect for each building, each being selected through an invited competition process. This was to promote variety and diversity, avoiding the appearance of a suburban office park. The individual building designs were then intended to be unified through a cohesive landscape strategy. According to Angela McCanna of Lyme, this phase is where the success of the Genzyme project lay.

More than 100 firms participated in the com-petitions that followed, with selection based upon the appearance of innovative ideas, commitment to the urban design goals of the master plan, firm availability and motiva-tion of the staff.

In addition, the competition process allowed a degree of validation of the master plan by

different designers. In the event that a sub-mission introduced new ideas to the project site, the master plan could be adjusted to match. In this vein, completing all the com-petitions in a relatively narrow timeframe al-lowed for cohesion between the individual building designs and unifying landscape ar-chitecture.

Multiple sets of competitions were held, each with a different jury:

Housing structures: buildings C, E, • and G. Each of the five competi-tors submitted for all three build-ings, but was not allowed to win more than one;Landscape design;• Building D (Genzyme Center);• Buildings A and B.•

The competition juries consisted of local ac-ademics, practitioners, and critics. This in-

creased the level of involvement of the com-munity in the outcome of the project, and so allows for a sense of ownership. Utilizing some of the same jurors across competi-tions partially helped to unify the results of the disparate competitions into a recogniz-able overall project.

The presence of competitions in the growth of the Kendall Square master plan is unique for a developer-driven process. This enables the project to break

free from stereotypes to pursue innovation and gain recognition as a successful commercial building.

12

Competition 1: Buildings C, E, and G

Competiton date: September 23, 1999Advisory panel: Bob Simha, MIT; John de Moncheaux, MIT; Jon Gollinger, housing developer; Bob Kuehn, housing developer; Stuart Pratt, housing developer; Mike Hass, ADD Inc.; Dennis Pieprz, Sasaki Associates.

Far left: Building E: Hotel, Housing and Retail.Architect: Childs Bertman Tseckares

Left: Building G: Office, Retail, and Housing.Architect: Architect’s Alliance

Competition 2: Landscape Design

Competiton date: March 6, 2000Advisory panel: Tim Agness, St. Paul Mississippi Design Center; Richard Graf, Urban Designer & Development Consultant; Michael Robinson, Auburn University School of Architecture; Peter Vanderwarker, architectural photographer and author.

Far left: North Sky Bowl Plaza EntryLandscape Architect: Michael van Valkenburgh Associates

Middle Left: Broad Canal Way entrance

Left: North Plaza seasonal views

Competition 4: Buildings A and B

Competiton date: September 13, 2000Advisory panel: Elizabeth Padjen, Editor - Architecture Boston; Cliff Pearson, Sr. Editor, Architectural Record; Brigitte Shim, Shim-Sutcliffe Architects; Scott Simpson, Stubbins Associates.

Far left: Building A, northwest view.Architect: Steven Ehrlich Architects

Left: Building B, west view.Architect: Anshen + Allen

13

16

Landsc

ape NORTH

PLAZAand BROADCANAL WAY

16

Landsc

ape NORTH

PLAZAand BROADCANAL WAY

17

LSOUTH PLAZABROAD CANAL WAYNORTH PLAZA

landscape architect

Michael Van Valkenburgh

Associates

pavilions executive architect

Symmes Maini & McKee

contractor

Dimeo Construction

use

Open Space, Skating Area,

Water Feature, and Pavilions

progress report

Construction of the North

Plaza, Gas Transfer Station

screening, and Parcels A and

D landscaping is in progress

for completion in Fall 2003.

Operation of the skating area

will be possible after comple-

tion of 650 East Kendall

Street building. Broad Canal

Way landscaping will be

complete at the opening of

Parcels E and G.26

Build

ing

E 100KENDALLSTREET

30

Build

ing

G 450KENDALLSTREET

44

45

46

85 86

Housing Childs Bertman Tseckares, Inc.PresentedbyDavid Clem

87

Housing Architect’s AlliancePresentedbyDavid Clem

88



Competition 3: Building DThe Genzyme CenterApril 26, 2000

Like the previous competitions, Lyme Prop-erties and Urban Strategies requested port-folios from a wide range of firms. A limited short list was then selected based on quality, but a firm with no preconceptions about this typology was also sought, in order to attain fresh perspective on the project. This short list had a wide geographic range; the firms were as follows:

Allies & Morrison, London;• Machado & Silvetti, Boston;• NBBJ, Seattle;• Bentham Crouwel, The • Netherlands;Behnisch, Behnisch & Partner, • Stuttgart, Germany.

The firms were asked to provide elevations, plans, and project descriptions. There were no requirements in the project brief on a de-sired outcome for the building, and sustain-ability, while important, was not specified. The shortlisted firms were paid a $10,000 stipend for their submissions, plus expenses, and were flown in to Boston for site visits.

At this time, Lyme Properties was in nego-tiations with Genzyme Corporation to lease a building on this site. The biotech firm was looking to expand and had about ten dif-

ferent sites in mind. The firm provided a program document to the competitors via Lyme, and observed the competition. After the results were attained from the jury, Gen-zyme CEO Henri Termeer was given leave to approve the winner.

As Termeer related at the grand opening of the building, the first four firms presented very attractive buildings, with models that were statue-like and sculptural.

However, he felt that they did not quite “get” it. The last architect, he said, came in empty-handed, and told the juryhe wanted to tell them what he was thinking the building might look like. In contrast to the previous submissions, Stefan Behnisch described the building from

the inside out. He presented the building as a tree - the large atrium as the trunk, and the upper-level gardens and office spaces as the branches. Not only did this function as a strategy for organizing the building, but a way of explaining the environmental notions inherent to the design.

Behnisch, Behnisch & Partner proposed a scheme based in European practice, offering minimized energy usage and a workspace completely flooded with daylight (a common anecdote being that one would not have to take their sunglasses off once entering the building). This was intended to boost pro-ductivity, and also resulted in the workplace being very attractive to prospective employ-ees. This resulted in a strong approval from Genzyme, because the long hours worked by their staff required a comfortable and healthy environment.

14

14

14

14

Facing page: Competition presentation board by Behnisch, Behnisch & Partner. Note the distribution

of winter gardens (green) around the central hall (yel-low) and the subsequent sightlines created, as well

as the proliferation of daylight penetrating the interior.

14Masterplanning & Competition


It was these concepts and others, such as using water from the Charles River for cool-ing, that attracted the jurors to the project from the start, as related by Ellen Dunham-Jones, who participated in the jury. Despite the fact that the jury had an even number of people, there was no difficulty in coming to a decision on the winner.

Initially Jones was unsure about the jury, given her involvement in the Congress for

the New Urbanism (CNU), and the possible difference in viewpoint with other jurors. But this concern was eliminated by the agree-ment on the Behnisch submission by all the jurors. From this it’s possible to draw con-clusions about the universal nature of the concepts presented by Behnisch.

Jones, an instructor in architecture at MIT at the time of the jury, also was impressed by the use of competitions in Lyme Properties’

Genzyme Center Competition Jury

Ellen Dunham-Jones, architect/associate professor of architecture at MIT

Elizabeth Padjen, Editor, ArchitectureBoston

Dennis Pieprz, Sasaki Associates

Michael Sorkin, Michael Sorkin Studio

Profile: Ellen Dunham-JonesDirector of the Architecture program at Georgia Tech, Jones’ academic interest is in linking contemporary theory to post-industrial development. She also advocates for alternatives to sprawl, and has recently focused on the retrofitting of suburbs. Both the former and the latter were suitable foci for this particular task. At the time of the competition, Jones also served as Chair of the Education Task Force for the Congress for the New Urbanism.

Far Left: Massing model of building atrium void space. This illustrates the analogy of the central tree trunk.

Left: Overall building massing.

Facing page: Competition presentation board by Behnisch, Behnisch & Partner.

development proposal. She conducted a studio based on the Kendall Square master plan by Urban Strategies, and invited Lyme President David Clem and architect Daniel Winny to sit on the review. This itself was in-novative and unusal, because the prevailing attitude at MIT at the time was not one con-ducive to hosting real estate developers.

16Masterplanning & Competition


The early involvement of a comitted tenant is a radical departure from busi-ness as usual in property development. This step, for the Genzyme Center, can be noted as a collecting catalyst allowing what had previously been limited to

concepts of what should be to take physical form. The sucess of the project would not have been achieved in its current definition without early tenant involvement.

In the typical development process, a devel-oper will often secure a site then approach an architect as a client for a structure. Upon completion, they secure tenants who lease space in the developer owned building. Of-ten these spaces are generic in their attempt to serve a hypothetical population. Remov-ing the variable occupant from the equation by constructing for a specific tenant allows for a perceived reversal in ownership and a higher quality product. Lyme Properties may have been the client for the Genzyme Center on a financial and contractual basis, but the building undoubtedly belongs to Genzyme in both occupation and realization.

In relocating his company’s headquarters, Genzyme CEO Henri Termeer had a spe-cific set of criteria with a strong emphasis on employee and company health. This notion extended to the site in looking for a loca-tion. Termeer desired an urban site to clean both environmentally and socially. Addition-

ally, site selection was driven by a human-istic approach centered on interaction with the community and the notion that a building could give something back. These aims run counter to a developer’s typical approach, which is based on square footage efficien-cies and occupancy percentages.

It is this laundry list of characteristics that lead Genzyme to Lyme Properties as a part-ner in developing their headquarters. Lyme owned the largest development parcel in Cambridge. A former brownfield site, it had already been remediated and the master plan procured by Lyme had additional social agendas focused on revitalizing the area. While the partnership of a large corporation and a developer is nothing new to the archi-tectural process, the timing and degree of involvement of Genzyme is unique.

Typically, a developer will complete a project then attract tenants based on the success

18

of the building. In the case of the Genzyme Center, however, the tenant involvement was directly related to the success of the structure. Genzyme became involved in the process around the time of the competition and therefore had an integral role in design, construction and financing decisions. Lyme Properties provided much of the up front fi-nancing for the project but, by all reports, Genzyme took over the guiding role typically held by the developer, “Genzyme was steer-ing the ship.”

This uniquely shaped the project by mak-ing the process more of a building custom tailored to Genzyme rather than the typical tenant fit out process. While the traditional terms base building and tenant fit out are used on the project, they survive only in no-menclature in the finished project. Genzyme was present at weekly design meetings and frequently on the construction site. They are not only the sole occupant of the building,

but also have their own facilities staff dedi-cated to the continued maintenance and function of the building. In addition, the early commitment of Genzyme as a tenant en-abled opportunities for innovation that might otherwise have been deemed unecessary or frivolous. Many of these element now cor-relate with the praised performance of the building.

This is not a design/build project. This is a convention-al development building. One of the things that is un-usual about it is that the lease was signed between the landlord and tenant before the builfing was designed. So, the lease provides for the mechanism and relation-ship between the landlord and the tenant on advancing and improving the design. - Randy Long, Lyme Properties



Henri Termeer has been involved with the Gen-zyme Corporation since 1985, when he was named its president and was promoted to Chairman in 1988. In addition to guiding Gen-zyme to record success in the pharmaceutical world Termeer is committed to a number of so-cial causes, many of them devoted to provid-ing medical care for the underprivileged.

As the CEO of Genzyme, Termeer was inte-gral to the corporation’s deep involvement in the construction of their headquarters. From association with the competition to frequent visits during construction, Termeer personally had his hand in every stage of delivery. This kind of involvement is rare from a corporate tenant, much less their CEO. In this instance, however, Termeer maintained a vested interest in the structure and the way in which it would represent the company. He is reported to have said, “This is the flagship. Do not let it sink”, and was not bashful in rejecting designs nor repeatedly visiting the site through out the day to see how specific elements were progress-ing. In addition, his European roots are said to have influenced the selection of an urban site as well as the design.

Henri TermeerWhile early tenant involvement is rare, the Genzyme Center is not the first instance of this happening, however, this relation-ship is heightened through deep involve-ment by the tenant. Typically, even with an established tenant, traditional developer/architect roles are maintained. For the Genzyme Center, Lyme was able to take a backseat fiduciary role and allow Gen-zyme to drive the design.

A system was set in place by which Gen-zyme could make changes to the design of the base building, a portion of the structure typically unavailable to tenant input. Gen-zyme could request a change. This would then be sent to the contractor for cost esti-mation then the financial impact would be sent to the developer. The developer then presented Genzyme with a yes, no option on the item.

This kind of involvement was enabled through top down interest in the building. While many executives would keep their distance from the development process, this was not the case with the Genzyme Center. Henri Termeer has been reported to have extensive involvement in the proj-ect. Without this corporate interest, it is un-likely that the Genzyme Center would have arrived in its current form and achieve-ments.

Facing page: These three buildings are large, single tenant driven works.However, in these instances the traditional developer architect roles were maintained.

Without passing aesthetic judgement, it can be noted that these buildings have failed to transform or in-

novate upon the the way in which an office building performs.

20

Hancock TowerArchitect: IM Pei and Henry CobbDeveloper: Beacon Capital TrustTenant: John Hancock Insurance

Constructed in the 1970’s, the most ex-tensive tenant involvement happened when Hancock Insurance paid for dam-ags to surrounding buildings during the plagued construction.

The Prudential CenterArchitect: Luckman PartnershipDeveloper: Boston PropertiesTenant: Prudential Insurance

Prudential Insurance may be the primary tenant behind the project, however the building has since increased to multiple tenants of varying size.

State Street FinancialArchitect: TRO Jung BrannenDeveloper: Columbia Plaza AssociatesTenant: State Street Financial

State Street’s participation in the project was eclipsed by the consciously minor-ity group developer’s desire to create an icon on the Boston skyline.



The type of integrated delivery employed in the construction of the Genzyme Center goes well beyond the delivery method typi-cally indicated by the term. Because of a di-verse team, complex functional aims and a compacted schedule this building required a different, and not always easy, form of col-laboration.

Inherent in the concept of integrated project delivery are the notions that most, if not all, parties essential to the design will be brought onto the team early in the process and that all entities will regularly be able to assimilate to discuss the project. While Genzyme’s process featured the appropriate timing for the designation of a design team, they faced a significant challenge in time zones. The design architects were located in Germany, one executive architect in California, another and the contractors in Boston, engineers in New York and England and significant con-sultants in Austria and Germany. As a result,

meetings were difficult to schedule, offices maintained multiple clocks and the process was heavily reliant on digital communica-tion.

Beyond timing, the various localities of key players, notably the contractors construct-ing the building and the architects produc-ing the design, provided some logistical di-versions in regards to delivering the project. The project was largely driven by concerns about sustainability. In Europe, sustainable measures are part of the code. In America, sustainability tends to supercede code. As a result, many elements considered standard to performance in Europe, particularly com-plex systems had to be justified to both client and contractor. Of noteworthy issue was the filigree slab, a type of slab that saves mate-rial in both concrete and formwork, assists in thermal gains and reduces the weight of the building. Previously not encountered by Turner who initially suggested a different

structural system, the structure was coordi-nated into 3 daily pours. Currently, the slab, heliostats, and loggia façade, all foreign methods to US contractors are 3 features integral to and frequently mentioned about the building.

In addition to systems, there is a difference between the architect’s scope of work in Eu-rope and America. In Europe, the architect will carry a project through schematic design. After that, it is up to the trades to complete the details of the project. In America, the ar-chitect sees a project through construction. Because Genzyme was a project using Eu-ropean architects and American contractors, some inevitable conflicts arose in regards to the details. While these conflicts are embod-ied in some details of the building, they are relatively minor in scale.

While trying to mesh a global project team implementing unprecedented systems might

Integrated delivery is a relatively new method employed in the archi-tectural process. As a result, it is considered innovative on a stand alone basis. However, occasionally the project being delivered em-

bodies innovation on its own terms and generates excitement to encourage integra-tion beyond contractual terms within the project team.

22

seem difficult enough, the Genzyme team had to do so under a fast tracked American schedule. The building took 23 months to complete where as in Europe, to which the building form and systems are more native, such a structure would take an estimated 5 years. This schedule was not just for the base building, as would be in most typical office construction, but for the tenant fit out as well. The two processes were dovetailed and involved the use of many of the same consultants. For example, the entire base

and tenant structures, while carried out by two different architects of record utilized one engineer.

While these challenges may have slowed, or even have been a detriment to most proj-ects, the Genzyme team was able to absorb and capitalize. Beyond contracts, the typical signifier of an integrated project team, the team operated as a unit. According to Lynne Thompson and Joe Gaiko of Turner, there was a constant sense of excitement about

the project. Members of the team knew they were building an entirely new type of structure - the sense of innovation provided motivation to reach for integration beyond traditionally defined terms. From frequent visits by Genzyme’s CEO, to the construc-tion workers spending 14 hours a day on site, less than ideal conditions under which to construct were successfully adapted to because of the top down integration of the project team.

One of the interesting aspects of the development process is the way that our team has operated over the last two years to bring us to the point we are today. This has been a fast track project. The building and design features are very unusual. We have a far flung design team, an architect from Germany with an associate execu-tive architect from Los Angeles, an Engineering firm from Bath England with an of-fice in New York and another associate Mechanical Engineer. - Michael Griffin, Turner Construction

VENICE, CA BOSTON, MA STUTTGART JOE

The project meetings were held at 12:00 noon in Cambridge, with video-conferencing, meaning that the West Coast and European consultants needed to adjust their schedules accordingly to meet the demand of the construction team on-site. Initially this caused numerous issues with communication, but the team quickly developed their electronic methods to maintain workflow. For many, the project represented a major shift into email and other high-speed forms of communication.



Genzyme CorporationMajority Building Tenant

Distribution: Headquarters – Cambridge, MANumber of Employees: 11,000 worldwide, 900 in CambridgeFirm Leadership: Henri Termeer CEO, Jason A. Amello CAO, Mark Banforth Senior Vice President Corporate Operations, Richard A. Moscicki MD Chief Medical OfficerScope of Markets: Healthcare industryServices: drug development, genetic testing, can-cer diagnosis and treatment products, orthopedic medical and surgical productsKey Consultants: Mt. Sinai School of Medicine for Fabry disease treatment; BioMarin Pharmaceuti-cal Inc.; Cambridge Antibody Technology; and Kirin Brewing Co., Ltd.

Lyme PropertiesOriginal Property Owner and Developer

Distribution (location): Hanover, New HampshireNumber of Employees: 2 (2009)Firm Leadership (at time of project): David Clem, Bob Green, and George LightbodyScope of Markets: Biotech property development primarily in the Cambridge areaServices: Property development, real estateKey Consultants: Genzyme, Millennium, Vertex, Microbia, Metabolix, and Monsanto

Behnisch ArchitektenDesign Architect, shell and core of base building

Distribution: Stuttgart, Germany; Venice, California; Boston, Massachusetts.Number of Employees: Approximately 50.Firm Leadership: Stefan Behnisch, Partner; Da-vid Cook, Partner; Martin Haas, Partner; Christof Jantzen, Partner.Scope of Markets: Gardens, Sustainability, Inte-riors, Education, Research Facilities, Public Realm, Infrastructure, Residential, Sports/Leisure; Offices.Services: Programming, Space Planning, Feasibil-ity Studies, Project Management, General Planning, Cost Consultancy.Key Consultants: Structural: Schlatch Bergermann & Partner; Buro Happold; Knippers Helbig; King Shaw Associates; Atelier One; Wetzel & von Seht; Fischer Friedrich; COWI; Pfefferkorn Ingenieure. Ar-chitectural: architectsAlliance; Next Phase Studios; Wörner-Architekten & Partner; Blackbird Architects; KSR Architects; Kayaalp Architecture & Consulting; TKS. Cost: Davis Langdon. Environmental: Trans-Solar Klimaengineering; Max Fordham LLP; Buro Happold; King Shaw Associates; Birch & Krogboe. Master Planning: Gehl Architects; Ken Greenberg. Lighting: Bartenbach Lichtlabor; Nimbus Design GmbH. Specialist: Theatre Project Consultants; VS Möbel. Publishing: fmo publishers; Aedes.

...the Cambridge Planning Board and the Community Development Department worked with Lyme to achieve a development that will complete the revitalization of the area and make it an important gateway to East Cambridge. The project reflects a vision for an urban, mixed-use community that will keep Kendall Square alive and vibrant well into the evening.

Creating a green building-one that sets new standards-is consistent with what we do every day as a corporation. Genzyme Center is consistent with our purpose, and our purpose is to innovate to create new standards of care for patients who have untreatable diseases.

We are convinced that we should design buildings with the human in mind.

David Clem Henri Termeer

Stefan Behnisch

24

House & RobertsonExecutive architects, base building CD & CA

Distribution: Culver City, California.Number of Employees: Approximately 3.Firm Leadership: James D. House, Principal; Douglas Robertson, Principal; Tom Williams, Project Manager.Scope of Markets: Various.Services: Executive Architectural Services.Key Consultants: n/a

Next Phase StudiosExecutive architects, tenant fit out CD & CA

Distribution: Boston, Massachusetts.Number of Employees: 10.Firm Leadership: Rick Ames, Principal; Martin Werminghausen, Principal.Scope of Markets: Institutional, Commercial, Housing, Residential, Competitions, Urban Projects.Services: Full design services for architecture and interiors; project leadership; integrated design, sus-tainability, and building performance.Key Consultants: Behnisch Architekten (architec-ture); Bartenbach Lichtlabor (daylighting, optimized artificial light); Fore Solutions (integrated designn and LEED consulting); TransSolar Klimaengineering (climate engineering); Michael Singer Studio (artist and environmental/landscape designer).

Turner ConstructionGeneral Contractor

Distribution: 24 US offices, Trinidad, Moscow, Dubai. International office based in New York, NYNumber of employees: Over 5,000 worldwide. 300 in Boston officeFirm Leadership: CEO Peter J. Davoren. Executive Vice Presidents Nicholas E. Billotti, William M. Bren-nan, John A. DiCiurcio, Pat A. Di Filippo, Wilfried G. Eckert - Chief Financial Officer, Kenneth J. Leach, Rodney J. Michalka, Stuart B. Robinson.Scope of Markets: Aviation, higher education, K-12 education, design/build finance, homeland se-curity, logistics, e-technologies, industrial, pharma-ceutical, green buildings, interiors, public assembly, healthcare, justice, sportsServices: preconstruction consulting, program management, project management, construction management, design-build, design-build/finance, general construction, building maintenance, multiple building program

We see the experiential component of architecture, the composition of space and light, as being free and supportive of the social aspects. This leads to what we call human friendly or ‘Humanistic’ Design. We believe that such an approach can introduce a certain lightness and simplicity to architecture resulting in well received projects.Rick Ames

Doug Robertson

Our limited focus allows us to operate efficiently and to take a flexible approach to tackling unusual challenges. By combining our experience and technical expertise with the talent of top design firms, we excel at providing high quality buildings for our clients.

We believe green buildings are not only good for the environment, they also provide immediate and long-term economic benefits for developers, building owners and occupants.Turner Construction



Buro HappoldStructural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing, [curtain wall design]. – design and specification

Distribution (location): Abu Dhabi, Bath, Belfast, Berlin, Birmingham, Boston, Cairo, Copenhagen, Dubai, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Jeddah, Kuwait, Leeds, Los Angeles, London, Manchester, Munich, New York, Pune, Toronto, Riyadh, Warsaw. Main offices in London.Number of Employees: 2,000 in 25 offices world wideFirm Leadership: Tony McLaughlin Principal for Genzyme. 44 other principals.Scope of Markets: airports, bridges, hotels, light industrial, medical and scientific, mixed use, offices, masterplanning, rail, residential, retail, roads and highways, tall buildings, transport buildings, water-front development.Services: buildings (structural engineering, building services/MEP, site infrastructure, specialist con-sulting], infrastructure [planning and urban design, transport, bridges and civil engineering structures] environment [planning and policy advice, master-planning and design, environmental impact assess-ment, environmental managementKey Consultants: Behnisch Architekten

Bartenbach LichtLaborLighting and Daylighting Consultants

Distribution: Innsbruck, AustriaFirm Leadership: Christian Bartenbach (founder), Frank Bunte (project planning), Andreas Danler (project planning), Christian Anselm (research and development)Scope of Markets: Administrative buildings, railway stations, banks, airports, exhibition buildings, shop-ping centers, sacred buildings, outside facilities, hotels, gastronomy, public buildings, institutionsServices: daylighting strategy consulting, natural and artificial lighting design

EH&EBuilding systems review and commissioning

Distribution: Needham, MANumber of Employees: 50Firm Leadership: John McCarthy, Sc.D., C.I.H., and John Spengler, Ph.D foundersScope of Markets: Bioscience, healthcare, com-mercial real estate, higher education, legal, insur-ance, K-12, architects, governmentServices: health and safety compliance, strategic site support, indoor environmental air quality, sys-tems commissioningKey Consultants (partners): Baxter Hodell Don-nelly, Bennington Design Management, Elkus/Man-fredi, Gorman Richardson Architects, Hanscomb, Faithful& Gould, HMFH Architects, Kallmann, McKin-nell & Wood Architects Inc.

Urban StrategiesMasterplanning

Distribution: Toronto, CanadaNumber of Employees: 51Firm Leadership: Partners - Joe Berridge, George Dark, Pino Di Mascio, Andrea Gabor, Melanie Hare, Frank R. Lewinberg, Connie Pasqualitto, Mark Reid, Cyndi Rottenberg-Walker, Michel TrocméScope of Markets: municipalities, governments and agencies, citizens and cooperative groups, in-stitutions, development companies, private corpora-tionsServices: master planning, downtown revitalization, regional growth management, waterfront regen-eration, campus planning, new community plans, visioning, TOD planning & design, site analysis & regulatory review, planning approvals, public con-sultation, urban design guidelines, parks and open space planning, official plans and zoning by-laws, plans of subdivision, expert testimony, administra-tive restructuring, design, competition management, model making, 3D renderings and animation

Facing page: Project team organizational diagram, developed from research and various interviews. This

begins to show the complicated relationships between firms working on what was really two buildings: the

base building (core and shell), and the tenant fit-out.

26

Bartenbatch LichtLaborLOG IDRolf JansenTAC

a Lyme Properties

b1 Behnisch

b3 Next Phaseb2 House and Robertson

c Turner Construction

d Genzyme Corporation

e The Genzyme Center

x Urban Strategies Competition

Construction

Key relationship

Legend

Direct contractual relationship

Incidental relationship

Occupancy &Comissioning

Buro Happold

EH & EGenzyme Facilities Staff



The building is a benchmark for performance, not just through raw usage data, but as a constantly evolving technological object. The complexity of environmental systems allows for a nearly endless stream of possibilities

for tweaking workplace comfort and functionality. Thus the building truly becomes a tool that is intrinsic to the operation of Genzyme.

The sustainable achievements for which the Genzyme Center has been lauded – it is the first LEED Platinum building in the Boston metro area – are not the limit of what can be taken from the atypical process. The real lesson lies in the building’s performance and decisions made regarding this performance. This is reflected in the extensive commis-sioning process, and Genzyme’s dedicated engineering and maintenance staff, who were involved in the entire process.

Behnisch, Behnish & Partner, in a recent book about the project, put forth the state-ment:

Technology is a living thing. It is the extension of the creative force behind it.

As an embodiment of technology housing the administrative functions for a high tech drug company, this statement can be seen in the Genzyme Center.

The physical form of the Genzyme cen-ter is the intersection between the master plan and open interior concept. While other buildings may have found innovation in form or aesthetics, the Genzyme center finds it in performance and employee comfort. The most noted features of the building, while aesthetically prominent, are geared towards these goals.

Many of these performative yields have been tallied in the form of the LEED Platinum cer-tification bestowed on the building in 2005, however, there is the sense that the build-ing has aspirations beyond this checklist. In fact, the project did not start out specifically to become LEED, but to be sustainable. The suggestion was made early on by Doug King of Buro Happold, once the consultants were familiar with the building concept. This ap-proach was embraced by Genzyme admin-istration, especially CEO Henri Termeer.

28

Building Facts

Location: 500 Kendall Street, Cambridge, MA.

Building Type: Commercial/office.

Size: 344,000 square feet, 12 stories.

Cost: $140 million with $107 million for construction. $400/sf. $23 million towards sustainable features.

Schedule: Groundbreaking November 2000;Construction started June 2001;Completed November 2003.

Structural System: Filigree wideslab on sitecast concrete frame, atop concrete foundation with 450 piles, pile caps, and grade beams.

Façade: 100,000+ SF high performance curtain wall, 32% ventilated double façade.

Roof system: Inverted roof membrane assembly, with extensive vegetative areas and reflective surfaces.

HVAC: Both heating and cooling are powered by steam from cogeneration at neighboring power plant, reducing distribution loss. Cooling is achieved by absorption chillers, and heating is by direct conversion. 500+ fan coil units provide adjustments to specific heating or cooling demand.

When you throw something new into a machine that is running very smoothly you’re going to slow down the process and produce problems that you didn’t expect, but if those elements, over time, become the new paradigm or become the new normal system for designing and building buildings, I think you would see that cost premium increase.Randy Long, formerly of Lyme Properties

Yield of atypical development process


Critical elements(at right)

1. Heliostats. Seven motor-controlled mir-rors follow the sun’s path and direct light into the building via the skylights at the top of the atrium. The motors are programmed to adjust for seasonal and climatic changes. However, they are susceptible to bird impact.

2. Prismatic louvers. Constructed of milled acrylic sheets, these louvers diffuse the sunlight directed into the atrium by the heliostats. They can be adjusted to block light and heat when the sun is especially strong.

3. Loggias. Covering a large part of the facade, this zone was intended to moderate between climatic extremes. It is comfortable in spring and fall; during summer and winter it is most useful as a buffer to the exterior tempera-tures.

4. Filigree wideslab. This system eliminated 2,552 tons of concrete from the project, cut the weight of the slab by 33%, and entire weight of the building by 25%. In addition, the necessary steel reinforcing was cut by 386 tons. These in turn reduced the size of the foundations, but increased the thermal mass of the building.

5. Atrium chandelier. Serving a dual purpose as reflective surface and art installation, the 768 prisms reflect light into the office spaces. Breaking down the reflected light also reduces heat buildup, while creating a dynamic atmo-sphere. However, the prisms are susceptible to dropped extension cords, and require a specially-created cleaning device. They have also sometimes been a distraction for employ-ees.

Innovative Features

“ You don’t feel like you’re in an artificial environment.That’s healthier for people and they perform better.”ó Gordon Brailsford

4

Meanwhile, mirrors on the roof track the sun and reflect it into the atrium

off prismatic chandeliers hung at various levels to create dancing

rainbow effects, and a stainless steel pool looks from above, as if it

contains liquid mercury.

Everywhere, diffused daylight gives the work areas a natural outdoor

illumination. Nearly half of the building is encased in a glass-walled second

ì skinî , creating a four-foot-wide ì l oggiaî ó a private corridor with doorways

to adjacent officesó that acts as a climatic regulator for each floor. Light

sensors in the loggia automatically adjust blinds on the exterior wall to

regulate glare and heat. In the winter, the sun heats the air in the loggias

and it is moved inside to warm the work areas. In warm weather, the hot

air rises and is automatically vented through louver windows that open to

the outside.

The effect of all these and other environmentally sensitive technologiesó

light enhancement systems, reflective ceiling tiles above the blinds, solar

Situation continued

This ì loggiaî acts as climaticregulator for each floor.

The blinds automatically regulateglare and heat.

Above: Supplemental light distribution was achieved by ceiling-mounted honeycomb devices in some areas. This maximized the use of artificial fixtures where they were necessary.

Below: Reflective blinds, controlled by the integrated management system, further diffuse daylight descending through the atrium.

Above: One of the rooftop weather stations used to track temperature, wind speed, air pressure, and intensity of light. This data is transmitted to the central Building Management System (BMS) (below), which adjusts the heliostats (right), prismatic louvers (right), interior reflective blinds (below left), and air movement, among its approximately 40,000 points of control. The BMS updates the building systems with new data every 15 minutes.

30

Sonnenlicht-Umlenkung - Heliostaten-System LIGHTRONSunlight-Reflection - Heliostatic System LIGHTRON #4186/2003

BOMIN SOLARBOMIN SOLAR

Industriestr. 8-10 • 79541 Loerrach/Germany • Tel:+49(0)7621-9596-0 • Fax: +49(0)7621-54368 • [email protected] • www.bomin-solar.de

Genzyme CenterBehnisch, Behnisch & Partner

12

3

4

5



In the four years the building has been oc-cupied, trial and error backed by extensive knowledge has lead to refinement of sig-nificant building components. The mainte-nance staff, headed by Lou Capozzi, is really more of a study group. Perhaps in the typi-cal building process, the occupation of the structure would be seen as the end of the process, and the tenants mere occupants. However, the Genzyme Center is viewed by its facilities engineers as an ongoing project. Capozzi and his staff are constantly seeking new efficiencies in the building functions.

This includes testing existing systems, through which it was discovered that only one of two chillers was necessary. Because a 450-ton chiller is a big-ticket item to have purhcased, but difficult to extract from the penthouse, Capozzi has since devised an operational plan for keeping both chillers in play so as not to lose the functionality of either.

Speculating about new systems, such as the potential for wind turbines on the roof (see above), is also among their interests. Sometimes the smallest task, such as clean-ing the reflective atrium chandelier, becomes a lengthy investigation, because of the cost associated with breaking the components. The facilities staff developed a way to run the chandeliers through a cleaning solution without having to clean the prisms individu-ally, lessening the risk of breakages.

Maintenance of the plant life is critical, too. An early misunderstanding on the part of an evening security detail caused the building to flush its air, opening up windows to the cold night and killing all the tropical plants. Even these organic elements are integral to the building’s systems, and more indirectly: ladybugs are used as natural pesticides and fertilization contributor, a unique addition to the cavalcade of mechanical systems.

Smart buildings need smart people . . . Troubleshooting isn’t just going somewhere to fix it. You have to understand how it works.Louis Capozzi, Facilities Manager, Genzyme Corporation

32

In addition to the building and what it repre-sents to the architectural community, several key team members have experienced atypi-cal yields. For Genzyme and Henri Termeer, their headquarters is a flagship of their mis-sion. While certainly this corporate identity existed before the building was built, most agree that the experience augmented Gen-zyme’s outlook - an outcome that could be called out of the ordinary.

Although many team members have moved on to other firms, Turner and Genzyme have continued their solid relationship. Behnisch, Behnisch & Partner (now Behnisch Archi-tekten) has since secured additional com-missions in the United States as sustain-ability became a larger part of the national consciousness. Behnisch designer Martin Werminghausen moved from Germany to Boston to enter a business partnership with Next Phase principal Rick Ames.

In a typical development process, the devel-oper and design architect may walk away with an agreement to complete additional work together. It is rare that the degree of fu-ture collaboration would extend further into the project team.

Unique results from a unique building:

This page, right: RMJM Hillier has designed a new laboratory building for Genzyme Corporation in China. The building is slated to incorporate “innovative green elements,” based on the architects and clients mutual respect for environmental sustainability and collaboration. These are two qualities that clearly lead back to the headquarters project.

This page, far right: Next Phase Studios has collaborated with Behnisch on a competition for a life sciences complex at Harvard’s new Allston complex.

Facing page, top: An image produced by Next Phase Studios showing the proposed installation of wind turbines on the roof of the Genzyme Center. These would replace the highpoint decorative element, which had not served any particular function. The installation further extends the efficiency of the building - the users carrying on the mission of the architect.

Facing page, bottom: Facilities Manager Louis Capozzi shown near the rooftop heliostats. The vegetative roof system on which he stands did not develop as intended, as it became contaminated with weeds and grasshoppers: a lesson learned about this type of installation.


34Conclusion

The physical innovation of the Genzyme Center is apparent. It is in a stand alone cat-egory in terms of building performance and sustainability in the United States. Howev-er, this yield would not have been possible without the reconsideration of the traditional development process.

The most significant and pivotal improve-ment on the existing process has been through early and encompassing involve-ment of the tenant. The Genzyme Corpo-ration’s deep, top down involvement in the construction of their headquarters is unique, and lent definition to many conceptual as-pects of the building.

This involvement has to be understood with-in context. From a site history that enabled unique development from the start to the conscientious use of a different method of architect selection, the notion of business as usual has been rejected.

The true innovation of the project then, is not in the product but in the process. While the yield of the equation may be unusual, this oddity can not be understood without ex-amining the factors and variables involved.

What architects can learn from this back-ward approach is that a building, and the building process, exists within a context. This context presents opportunities to draw out catalysts to reshape both the process and the product. These alterations do not have to be radical, but intelligently placed and definitive in their aims.

If innovation in the physical result is the goal, then the process by which a building it pro-duced has to innovate as well.

Conclusion


AIA/COTE Top Ten Green Projects. “Genzyme Center.” American Institute of Architects. April 22, 2004. Accessed February 2009. http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=274

Archambeault, Bill. “Developers chafe at Cambridge regulations.” Boston Business Journal. May 12, 2000. Accessed Feb-ruary 2009. http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2000/05/15/story4.html?page=2

Architectural Record. “Genzyme Center.” McGraw_Hill Construction. July 2004. Accessed February 2009.http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/archives/0407KendallGenzyme.asp

Brailsford, Gordon. “Genzyme Center: Showcase on Building Green.” Presented to Low Impact Development Conference for the Real Estate Development Industry. April 5, 2007.

Brailsford, Gordon. “Genzyme Builds New Corporate Headquarters in Cambridge.” High-Profile Facilities Development News. Posting date unknown. Accessed April 10, 2009. archive.high-profile.com/2002/nov/genzyme.html

Buildings Database. “Genzyme Center (Corporate Headquarters).” U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Pro-gram. December 27, 2007. Accessed February 2009. http://hpb.masstech.org/process.cfm?ProjectID=446

BuildingGreen, Inc. “Genzyme Center.” U.S. Green Building Council/Certified Project List. Site updated 2008. Accessed February 2009. http://leedcasestudies.usgbc.org/overview.cfm?ProjectID=274

Business Editors. “$400 Million Biotech Development On Brownfield Site in East Cambridge Unveiled by Governor Cel-lucci.” Business Wire via The Free Library. November 9, 2000. Accessed February 2009. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/$400+Million+Biotech+Development+On+Brownfield+Site+in+East+Cambridge...-a066763790

Campbell, Robert; Clem, David; Ehrlich, Steven, and Greenberg, Ken. “Kendall Square Development: A Proven Collabora-tion for Success.” Presented at American Institute of Architects National Convention, Boston, 2008. May 17, 2008.

Campbell, Robert for The Boston Globe. “‘Green’ building is bright and beautiful - Genzyme Center wins annual Parker Medal.” Biovalley Basel. January 22, 2009. Accessed February 2009. http://www.biovalley.ch/content.cfm?nav=4&content=10&command=details&id=8535

Cambridge Community Development Department. “East Cambridge Riverfront Plan.” City of Cambridge, MA. Published 1978. Accessed February 2009. http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/cp/zng/ecambrfplan/ecamb_rfplan_all.pdf

Cambridge Community Development Department. “East Cambridge Development Review Process and Guidelines.” City of Cambridge, MA. Published 1985. Accessed February 2009. http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/cp/zng/ecambrfplan/ecamb_guide.pdf

Cambridge Community Development Department/Eastern Cambridge Planning Study Committee. “Eastern Cambridge Planning Study.” City of Cambridge, MA. Published October 2001. Accessed February 2009. http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/ecaps/report/ecaps_rpt_all.pdf

Carleo, Christopher; Clark, Thomas, and Wilk, Charles. “Phoenix-Award Winning Kendall Square Rises from Cement-Treat-ed Brownfield Site.” Portland Cement Association. Published 2006. Accessed April 2009. http://www.concretethinker.com/Content/Upload%5C406.pdf

Case Studies: Green Buildings. “Genzyme Center is Distinctively Efficient.” Portland Cement Association. 2009. Accessed February 2009. http://www.cement.org/buildings/buildings_green_genzyme.asp

Sources

36Sources

City of Cambridge Planning Board. “Eastern Cambridge Rezoning Petition.” City of Cambridge, MA Planning Board. Pub-lished June 2001. Accessed February 2009. http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/ecaps/petition/ecpas_pet_textonly.pdf

Clark, Thomas. “Kendall Square redevelopment project: An award-winning transformation.” Revitalization Online. January 25, 2007. Accessed February 2009. http://www.revitalizationonline.com/article.asp?id=1559

Deane, Michael (Turner Construction). “A Contractor’s View of Sustainable Development.” Presented to USGBC - Hampton Roads Chapter. June 17, 2008.

Finneran, Catherine. “Green for Brown: Brownfields Financing.” Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protec-tion. December 7, 2007. Accessed February 2009. http://www.eot.state.ma.us/smartgrowth/downloads/SessionsC/C4/C4_finneranc.pdf

Gose, Joe. “The Biotech Equation.” National Real Estate Investor. June 1, 2008. Accessed February 2009. http://nreionline.com/property/office/real_estate_biotech_equation_0601/

Gould, Kira L. “A Developer Raises the Bar in Cambridge.” Competitions Magazine. Winter 2002/2003: 6-15.

Hillman, Michelle. “Lyme to sell portfolio, could fetch $1B.” Boston Business Journal. June 11, 2004. Accessed February 2009. http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/06/14/story2.html

Hillman, Michelle. “BioMed buys seven Lyme buildings for $531M.” Boston Business Journal. April 18, 2005. Accessed February 2009. http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/04/18/daily1.html

Lyme Properties, LLC. “Kendall Square: a place and a project.” Lyme Properties, LLC. Published 2003.

Mandell, Julia. “Genzyme Center.” Building Climatology (Arch 516). Rice University, Fall 2005. Accessed February 2009. http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~arch316/2005_genzyme.pdf

Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. “Economic Development.” Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. 2009. Accessed February 2009. http://www.massbio.org/economic_development/

Massachusetts, Commonwealth of. “Chapter 23G: Section 29A. Brownfields Redevelopment Fund.” The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Site update unknown. Accessed February 2009. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/23g-29a.htm

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). “Building on History.” (video) Internet Archive. 2006. Accessed February 2009. http://www.archive.org/details/MassDEP-Brownfield-Success-Cambridge-2006

Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA). Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Kendall Square masterplan, EOEA# 11657. MEPA. Accessed January 25, 2009.

MassDEP. “Summary of the Brownfields Act: Chapter 206 of the Acts of 1998.” Massachusetts Department of Environ-mental Protection. Posted 1998. Accessed February 2009. http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/bfhdout2.htm

May Young, Niki. “RMJM go green with Genzyme Centre.” World Architecture News. May 8, 2008. Accessed April 10, 2009. http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2266

Sources


SourcesNeely, Dona, and Olmstead, Dara. “Genzyme Center; Headquarters for Genzyme Corporation; Shedding New Light on Sustainabile Building Strategies; A Case Study of Sustainable Building Strategies.” Tufts Climate Initiative & Tufts University Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning; Commissioned by the Massachusetts Technology Collabora-tive. September 27, 2005. Accessed February 2009.

Ramsey, Charles George; Andy Pressman, Harold Reeve Sleeper, Smith Maran Architects. Architectural Graphic Stan-dards. New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

Rosenberg, Brian. “University Park granted parking.” The Tech (MIT). January 9, 1991. Accessed February 2009.http://tech.mit.edu/V110/N58/park.58n.html

Smith, Erin. “Cambridge gets its own Frog Pond.” Wicked Local: Cambridge. December 4, 2006. Accessed February 2009. http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/archive/x396775921

Steelcase, Inc. “Case Study: Genzyme Corporation.” Steelcase, Inc. Published 2004.

Steele, James and Behnisch, Behnisch, & Partners. Genzyme Center. Germany, fmo publishers, 2004.

Zacks, Steven. “Form Follows Performance.” METROPOLISMAG.COM. December 17, 2008. Accessed February 2009.http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20081217/form-follows-performance

ZDNet.com “Photos: A look inside the green, high-tech Genzyme Center.” ZDNet.com. Site updated 2009. Accessed March 2009. http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-160621.html

Project Team sources

Preliminary phone interview with Angela McCanna at Lyme Properties. February 18, 2009.Subsequent email communication with “Kendall Square Project” document. February 18, 2009.

Interview and building tour with Louis Capozzi, Genzyme Facilities Manager. February 19, 2009.

Preliminary phone interview with Rick Ames of Next Phase Studios. February 18, 2009.Interview with Rick Ames at Next Phase Studios. March 3, 2009.

Preliminary phone interview with secretary at Behnisch Architekten. February 18, 2009.

Preliminary phone interview with Doug Robertson at House and Robertson. February 18, 2009.

Interview with Lynne Thompson (formerly of Turner Construction) at Bain Capital, Boston, MA. March 13, 2009.

Email communication with Ken Greenberg (formerly of Urban Strategies), received “Competitions” article. March 13, 2009.

Phone interview with Ellen Dunham-Jones (formerly of MIT Faculty). March 19, 2009.

Phone interview with Joe Gaiko (formerly of Turner Construction). March 27, 2009.

38

Thanks

Authors

Thank you to Daniel Hewett, our instructor who challenged us to create a case study that told more than the basic facts. Let’s hope we didn’t disappoint. Thanks to all of our classmates who offered criticism and advice throughout the semester.

Aleta Budd is a graduate student in the School of Architecture at Northeastern Uni-versity in Boston. She received her Bachelor of Science in Architecture magna cum laude from Northeastern in 2008.

Michael Prattico is a graduate student in the School of Architecture at Northeastern University in Boston. He received his Bach-elor of Architecture magna cum laude from Syracuse University in 2004. He attained LEED Accreditation in 2007.

In 2003, hundreds of buildings were con-structed in Boston. Of these, a handful stand out as remarkable. Only one, howev-er, achieved a LEED platinum rating. While the sustainability of the Genzyme Corpo-rate Headquarters has been emphasized in numerous published reports, this often distracts from other notable aspects of the building.

While the plaque in the lobby might set the building apart but it can be argued that, even without this certification, the building would attract attention – it embodies innova-tion – the question is how? While it’s easy to tally inventiveness in physical aspects of the

building, this does not get to the processes or people that put them there. On paper, and through the paper trail, the Genzyme Center defies its own novelty, appearing much like any other complex developer driven project.

It becomes apparent then that there were factors in individuals and institutions driving change within the framework of the typical development process. This case study ex-amines the adjustments made to the con-ventional development process that resulted in the Genzyme Center and the ways new buildings might derive their own definitions of success from that result.

case studies: catalysts to innovation

Documents