Southern California Healthcare Construction Executive Review; 2000.   Cedars-Sinai Research II Kenneth Orgel, manager of construction for Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, is pleased with the progress of the as yet unnamed research II building. The existing research area, called the Cedars-Sinai Davis building, was completed in 1992. The second phase of the Los Angeles research structure will include a total of 70,000 square feet, making for a total of 220,000 square feet dedicated to research.

"The whole project has spanned more than 10 years," Art Border, AIA, project architect for RBB Architects, Inc. He added that Phase II planning began in December 1997.

There was a building already located where Phase II is. That’s why the building had to be built incrementally, he added. The original building, damaged beyond repair by the Northridge earthquakes of 1994, was torn down in 1998, with the assistance of a small FEMA pledge toward reconstruction. Research II’s construction was planned to begin in 1994. Border explained things changed and that the impetus for the revised project was the Northridge earthquake as well as subsequent changes in technology due to problems with welding procedures observed after the earthquake. Once that was done, the project moved forward quickly, according to Border. After exploring all the available possibilities, he said, "We introduced new joint technology to the second phase. This is one of the easier ones to implement. We changed the grade of steel to ensure improved welding characteristics."

The construction of Research II began on April 26, 1999, Orgel said. October 2000 is when the building will open, he added.

According to Orgel and Groshart, chief among those challenges is the fact that approximately 300 researchers are working in Phase I, the Cedars-Sinai Davis Research Building during the construction. "We need to ensure we control vibration, noise and other obstacles without compromising life safety systems or the work of the researchers," Orgel explained. "In order to mitigate vibration that would impede delicate experiments, a rigid short-span steel frame was incorporated."

Groshart added, "Keeping the researchers happy and keeping their labs functional while performing a major construction job has been, without a doubt, the biggest challenge." Orgel said the two phases will form a contiguous structure, connected in 64 locations, "as opposed to a separate structure with an expansion joint. "This project integrates steel moment resisting steel frames from two different generations of joint technology," Orgel said. "We have successfully integrated both structures." Border said Phase I was designed to receive Phase II. "It’s physically glued to the structural system in Phase I," he said. "All vertical transportation and stair towers are already resident in Phase I." What he finds unique about this project is the fact the construction team is "trying to take a difficult site and get maximum use out of it." "[The project] integrates the existing Cedars-Sinai exterior design vocabularies as well as that of the first phase," Orgel added. "It blends well, giving an overall compatible feel."

Border said about 23,000 square feet is dedicated to generic laboratories. Two floors, roughly totaling 15,700 square feet, are set aside for comparative medicine. The laser lab is the only specialized lab in the building and will operate on the ground floor. Support areas total about 11,000 square feet.

Cedars-Sinai hopes to attract corporate clients to the fourth and fifth floors, in a kind of corporate partnership with private sector research. This would allow the hospital to fully build out the building, while generating income from tenants until all of its space is needed for Cedars-Sinai research. Inside, lab details include necessary flexibility, Border said. "The goal was to propagate generic laboratory modules, much like we had in Phase I, which shared core support areas," he added. "Because research programs are changing during grant durations, they’re highly volatile over time. We took the developed Phase I concept and tried to enhance on it in a number of ways."

Some of those included additional adjustment in bench areas, in overhead shelving and in making bench tops adjustable to varying heights. Benches can be broken down and removed completely.

"A significant difference between Phases I and II included an increased need for data communication at the desktop," Border said. This is intended to "respond to the increasing use of computer data applications at the work bench." The use of mobile pedestals allows for the reconfiguration of lab space. In research areas you can even break down a workbench aisle if needed. "It’s completely flexible to the maximum extent that’s possible in a lab environment," Border said. The first part of this phased construction included demolition of the basement of the original building on the site and clearing utilities for the new infrastructure. Next up was the shell and core package and accompanying design changes to meet code revisions. Finally, that allowed for the tenant development to catch up with the rest of the package. The contract was a negotiated process with Peck/Jones.

"That allowed for a tremendous amount of collaboration from the owners, and gave us as architects, I think, much better control than a stipulated lump-sum competitive bid," Border said. Accepting FEMA funds meant a competitive bid process was required.

In addition, Border said, there was "persistent value engineering throughout the process." When constructing a project of this scope, working together is essential. "It’s been a pleasure to do this job," Groshart said. "We are a team. We’re all in it together." "This job is truly unique in that everyone gets along and works for the common good of the project." If a problem is discovered during construction, Groshart added, there’s no finger-pointing or trying to say it’s someone’s fault. Team members just work together to solve it.

The team process has included "a lot of value engineering," he said. At the beginning of the project, each subcontractor was asked, "What can we do to save everybody money?"

"The quality is the same," Groshart added. "It’s a different brand." All this, and they’re still on schedule too. "It’s a fantastic project," Groshart said. "Not only is it going to expand the research capacity of the hospital, but it’s just been a great project to work on." Border took praise a step further. "The project thus far is, I think, one of the smoothest running we’ve done with this client," he said. "It’s the best partnering team that we’ve ever assembled." Orgel agrees the team process has been a huge success. "The success of this project is primarily due to the excellent team that we established for the construction of the second phase," Orgel said. Some key team members included William Driver of Peck/Jones, Border and Ed Saborio of Planning Partners, Ltd.

"In the 14 years I’ve worked here, this is the best team I’ve had," he added. "Additionally, the user groups, headed by Dr. Shiomo Melmed [director of the Cedars-Sinai Research Institute], were outstanding. They have worked with us every step of the way and this has proved to be invaluable. Everybody is so well-focused. We have an excellent contractor, a world-class architect, and extremely participatory user group. When you combine these elements, the degree of success increases significantly."