Posts

World’s Largest Life Science Campus Launches In Texas

Texas Medical Center has begun construction on the $1.8 billion first phase of the 37-acre megaproject.

Houston’s place in the U.S. and the world as a major life science cluster takes a big step forward as Texas Medical Center begins construction of the $1.8 billion first phase of a 37-acre, 6 million-square-foot life science campus known as TMC3.

Dubbed the world’s largest life science campus, the TMC3 master plan was designed by Boston-based Elkus Manfredi Architects, a key player in shaping several of the leading life sciences clusters in Massachusetts.

The TMC3 project expands on the more than 60 institutions and 100,000-plus employees already located at Texas Medical Center, the largest medical center in the world. William McKeon, TMC president & CEO, said in a prepared statement TMC3 extends the medical center’s collaboration to Fortune 100 life sciences companies and entrepreneurial ventures.

Phase One is backed by $1.8 billion in financing from leading life science investment and property development teams. It includes two buildings totaling 950,000 square feet—a 700,000-square-foot research facility and a 250,000-square-foot collaborative building developed by Beacon Capital Partners and their strategic partner Braidwell, a life science-focused investment firm.

The initial phase will also feature a hotel with more than 500 keys and 65,000 square feet of conference space; a 350-unit residential tower; more than 2,000 parking spaces and 18.7 acres of public space. Helix Gardens, part of the landscape design by Mikyoung Kim, will feature a chain of five public parks and a central garden for outdoor receptions, concerts, graduations and other large-scale events.

A Promising Future

Alex Karnal, co-founder & chief investment officer at Braidwell, said in a prepared statement TMC3 will be a model of how to empower an ecosystem of expertise at tremendous scale. In addition to its partnership with Beacon, Braidwell is expected to bring its expertise in making multi-stage life science investments to fuel growth of companies that will be operating on the TMC3 campus.

Noting it’s an unprecedented time for life sciences and innovation in the U.S., Steve Purpura, president of life science at Beacon Capital Partners, said in prepared remarks Houston has all the factors required for explosive growth in the life sciences space. He also credited TMC with seeding innovation, building relationships with the world’s largest life sciences companies and creating the infrastructure needed for long-term success.

TMC3 is expected to generate about $5.4 billion in economic growth for the state each year, including the creation of more than 23,000 new permanent jobs and about 19,000 construction jobs.

Other TMC3 campus collaborators include Majestic Realty, Transwestern Development, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas A&M University Health Science Center and University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.

Another Houston Project

In February, Hines and 2ML Real Estate Interests released renderings of the 53-acre life science district in Houston known as Levit Green that will be adjacent to the Texas Medical Center. The mixed-use development’s first phase will include a 270,000 square-foot laboratory and office building as the centerpiece. The five-story building will include a 7,000-square-foot conference center; 5,800-square-foot fitness facility; café and restaurant space and an outdoor garden. Levit Green will eventually have more office components as well as residential, retail and hospitality space.

 

How Venture Capital Funding Could Give Office A Much-Needed Boost: Healthcare/Life Science Sectors Gained 20% Of Global VC Investment

Hiring data across hundreds of firms that received venture capital-backed funding may provide a clue into how those cash infusions will impact CRE, according to a new report from Newmark.

The 500 US firms Newmark analyzed and cross-referenced against LinkedIn data raised a total of $44.9 billion and posted 22,582 job openings since April 2021, translating to about 3.4 million square feet of CRE demand. That’s about 7,500 square feet of demand for every $100 million raised, if you assume 150 square feet per worker. If you assume 200 square feet per worker, that equates to 10,000 square feet of demand per $100 million raised. But Newmark analysts say these numbers are likely “considerably lower than the reality.”

Here’s why: according to LinkedIn, about 85% of jobs are filled by networking, and not every company uses the platform to find candidates. And what’s more, the survey occurred in early July, meaning some of the companies funded since April have already filled open jobs.

“Total employment growth from the sample set is likely anywhere from 30.0% to 50.0% higher than what the job postings data suggests,” the report notes. “This means that even using a ratio of 10,000 square feet of demand for every $100 million raised is likely far below the reality, possibly by half. Anecdotal evidence shows the ratio is likely something closer to 25,000 square feet of demand for every $100 million raised, but a number that is easily and logically defensible is a minimum of 15,000 square feet per $100 million raised.”

So far this year, $315.3 billion in new VC money was raised globally, with $166.4 billion raised in Q2. Prior to the pandemic, annual VC investment had averaged around $164.1 billion annually. The B2C and healthcare/life science sectors have gained the most market share and account for about 20% of global VC investment each.

The US is the dominant market for new VC investment, according to Newmark, and accounts for more than half of all funds raised, followed by China. Since the first half of the year, VC funding in the US has been focused mainly on artificial intelligence, fintech, TMT, SaaS, and big data.

“Under normal circumstances, these numbers would suggest a commercial real estate boom in the making, at least within markets where there is a heavy tech focus,” the report states. “They still do, though it will be tempered by the pandemic.”

 

Source: GlobeSt.

Developing Life Sciences Real Estate At The Speed Of Innovation

Speed always has been a hallmark of the life sciences sector, with first movers standing to gain considerable market share while delivering much-needed medical devices and pharmaceuticals to the public.

But the race to produce a COVID-19 vaccine and related therapies is unlike anything that has come before, with a dozen potential vaccines already entering Phase 3 clinical trials only months after the virus was identified.

While we don’t know exactly when a COVID-19 vaccine will be widely available, research and development has advanced to combat this global threat at a pace that can only be described as “breakneck.” In contrast to today’s day-to-day progress, the mumps vaccine — considered the fastest ever approved — took four years to advance from collecting viral samples to administering a licensed drug.

Hopefully, COVID-19 is a once-in-a-lifetime event, and there won’t be a need for a worldwide, all-hands-on-deck effort in the future. But the lessons the life sciences space is learning now about fostering innovation, creating efficiencies, and coordinating activities across research, development, manufacturing, and distribution will shape the industry in the years to come.

Those lessons inevitably include new thinking about the space where life science work happens, especially in R&D labs that are the origins for so much of today’s groundbreaking discoveries, but also in administrative and other services that support this work. Any real estate decision made today will have real-world implications for years to come, so it’s imperative that companies get it right and meet the demand for prescription drugs, personalized medicine, gene therapies, and other emerging solutions.

The Changing Nature of Life Sciences Innovation

Life sciences companies look different today than they have in years past, when massive pharmaceutical companies and smaller, more nimble biotechnology firms dominated the space. Today, much of the innovation is driven by venture-capital-backed startups, which don’t have the operating capital to build expansive corporate campuses and purpose-built labs.

These companies graduate from shared incubators to leased lab space, often in life sciences hubs like Boston, San Francisco, and San Diego where academics, research institutions, and talent pools coexist. While every lab has its own sophisticated needs, there are enough commonalities that existing lab space can be modified and generally repurposed as companies evolve and expand.

One of the downsides of this concentration of life science innovators is available lab space is leased quickly in today’s market. Life sciences companies tend to group together, whether in city centers or suburban hubs, and while companies can and do lease space that is further removed from existing clusters, it can be difficult to attract the talent that is so vital to driving innovation if the research facility isn’t in the right area.

Even when lab space is available, companies must be diligent in determining whether the existing space can support their work. A former biological lab is more easily converted to new biological efforts, rather than reworking the space for chemistry, for instance. And just as innovation has accelerated new solutions for the public, the methods that drive lab work also have evolved, with new equipment and research approaches dictating how the space is conceptualized.

Redeveloping Alternative Property Types

Given the competitive landscape of existing lab space, earlier-stage life sciences companies may initially land in buildings not necessarily designed for lab work. While labs carry special requirements not common in other development types — including greater ceiling heights, unique lab equipment, more robust HVAC systems, and structural considerations — developers are increasingly trying to lure life sciences companies that want to remain in high-demand areas without building from the ground up and look to these repositioned building alternatives.

While the prospect of redeveloping an existing building in a life science sub-market — such as an industrial warehouse or manufacturing facility — is achievable, the challenges associated with fitting out these buildings for the specific requirements of lab work can be complex and costly and require thorough due diligence. These properties, meanwhile, aren’t just there for the taking. Quality industrial and manufacturing buildings are in high demand as a result of changing consumer habits, which have been shifted by COVID-19.

The repurposed universe consists almost entirely of steel and concrete structures. Wooden structures are often the cheapest to lease or develop but they don’t offer the inherent requirements for chemical control zones and other protections of more robustly built properties. Attempting to retrofit a wooden structure to support lab science work has inherent limitations, which developers should take into account.

Managing High-Cost Items

The most expensive and unique aspect of a lab build-out are the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems, which, along with lab benching, push the project cost into the hundreds of dollars per square foot, even when the space meets other structural and space considerations.

These expenses affect the entire development, not just the lab space. A tenant with an equal split between lab and administrative workers may desire typical office amenities: high, open ceilings and ample free space. Similar to the technology-based offices of today, these features come at a premium and will likely be separated from the laboratories.

MEP and equipment considerations aren’t exclusive to redeveloping non-life sciences buildings either, as existing systems in former labs may be outdated and not easily adaptable. These often end up on the scrap pile, replaced with modern equipment in a similar process to bringing in new MEP systems to former warehouses or manufacturing facilities. However, second- or even third-generation lab buildings typically have the structural, ceiling height, and routing of the MEP systems considerations already deployed.

Additionally, not all labs serve the same purpose; some special lab equipment will require unique customization of the space, which must be identified and incorporated early in the design process. Buying only the equipment that is needed can save money up-front and over the long term. Unnecessary lab equipment comes with a high energy draw and heat load output, both of which can contribute to unnecessary costs for years to come.

Today’s labs are run differently than those of decades past: There is a stronger connection between time spent in the lab, related office or computer activities, and collaborating with coworkers. This significant change in work patterns calls for streamlined workflow and a more efficiently designed space that naturally supports the different types of work being performed. A better flow between the lab space and office space can increase productivity as well as optimize usable square feet — and rent.

Best Practices for Embarking on New Real Estate Projects

As long as speed is a factor in life science development success, expanding lab space will be an important consideration for many companies. Though the development and redevelopment process is costly and complex, it doesn’t have to distract from the essential business of creating life-saving and enhancing breakthroughs.

Taking a creative, practical, and flexible approach to building out lab space can help life sciences companies compete, both now and well into the future.

 

Source: Life Science Leader