S+T Perspectives: Key Takeaways from the 2026 Lab Design Conference

This year’s Lab Design Conference reinforced something we’ve been seeing across projects: From space flexibility to speed-to-market pressures, many laboratories continue to face some of the same longstanding issues, but with seemingly more urgency and less room for missteps. Expectations are higher, timelines are tighter, and teams are being asked to make smarter decisions earlier in the process.

Hixson’s John Tunningley, R.A., PMP, NCARB, and Paul Thamann, R.A., AIA attended the 2026 conference and noted that the following topics were front and center:

1. Flexibility. Flexible lab design is no longer a forward-looking idea, it’s a given. Conversations focused on how to plan for needs that aren’t fully defined yet, whether that’s leaving room for additional equipment (e.g., fume hoods) or providing capacity for evolving workflows. Even as digital tools reduce time at the bench (see item 4, below), the need for adaptable space isn’t going away…it’s just shifting. The challenge is making decisions today that won’t limit options down the road.
2. Early engagement with end users. This isn’t a new concept, but it is one that came up repeatedly, particularly the importance of keeping users involved beyond initial programming. When lab teams understand the reasoning behind decisions, there tends to be less friction when tradeoffs arise later.
3. Hazardous materials. Designing for hazardous materials continues to grow more complex, particularly in multi-story or existing facilities. Sessions highlighted the challenges of working within control area limits and code requirements when ideal layouts aren’t possible. In some cases, teams are turning to performance-based fire protection approaches to meet intent where prescriptive solutions fall short. It’s a reminder that lab design often requires balancing code with real-world constraints.
4. AI and digital modeling. Laboratories are not immune to the AI revolution. In fact, even at this early stage, these tools are starting to shape how facilities are planned and sized. One notable thread was how simulation and AI-assisted testing are beginning to reduce the amount of physical lab work required in early phases. In turn, some organizations are rethinking long-held benchmarks around space needs per researcher.
5. Lessons learned. As is to be expected, a number of sessions focused on real-world project experiences, particularly those involving challenging conditions such as compressed timelines, active facilities, or renovations within existing (and sometimes historic) structures. Across these case studies, a common thread emerged: Success was rarely tied to a single decision, but rather to how well teams aligned early and adapted as conditions evolved.

Hixson’s Paul Thamann also participated in one such discussion, “Lessons from the Unexpected: Navigating Challenges in Lab Design,” moderated by Sam Huber of Eurofins. In this wide-ranging conversation, panelists:

• Placed particular emphasis on team dynamics and the importance of establishing the right project framework from the outset, including partner selection.
• Cautioned against approaching highly specialized laboratory environments with a commodity mindset, noting the risks that can arise when nuance and technical requirements are undervalued.
• Discussed what defines a strong RFP (and how owners can more effectively evaluate responses), and why alignment across procurement, engineering, and construction teams remains essential to achieving project goals.

Overall, the sessions at this year’s Lab Design Conference centered on execution: how to make better decisions earlier, stay aligned across teams, and navigate complexity without slowing projects down. For teams planning new facilities or evaluating existing ones, the real takeaway is that the lab design playbook isn’t changing as much as the pace and expectations around how well its principles are applied.