Mamie Harvey, AIA, on Designing Science and Technology Spaces
Insights from the president of Alliiance into the work of shaping technically demanding research environments
Interview by Joel Hoekstra | June 18, 2025
Photo by Eric Mueller Photography.
SPOTLIGHT
Curiosity has always driven Mamie Harvey, AIA. As a child growing up in Illinois, she attended a Montessori school, where students were encouraged to explore whatever interested them. As a college student at Washington University in St. Louis, she elected to study architecture in part because design often intersects with other professions in fascinating and unexpected ways. As an architect at Alliiance in Minneapolis, Harvey has focused on science and technology (S+T) projects for more than two decades, providing her with numerous opportunities to delve into other professional realms. Earlier this year, Harvey was named Alliiance’s first female president.
Science and technology clients often have very specific design needs. Their architects must balance the technical requirements of these projects with aesthetics, comfort, sustainability, and more. Here, Harvey, who continues to lead Alliiance’s S+T practice and oversees the firm’s sustainability efforts, discusses her approach to this work.
Photos 1–7: University of Minnesota Physics and Nanotechnology Building, designed by ZGF and Alliiance. Photos 8–12: University of Minnesota Cargill Building for Microbial and Plant Genomics, designed by Alliiance. Photos 1, 5, and 7 by Benjamin Benschneider. Photos 2–4 by Paul Crosby. Photo 6 by Steven Bergerson. Photo 10 by Don Wong. Photos 11 and 12 by Suzanne Livingston.
As a designer, what drew you to S+T projects?
One of the earlier S+T projects I worked on was the Cargill Building for Microbial and Plant Genomics at the University of Minnesota [completed in 2003]. It’s on the St. Paul campus, which includes several older agricultural structures, so it really had to respond to its context. We had to be careful about scale and form. Instead of designing one big monolithic lab, we broke the structure down into smaller components. It made the building feel more connected to its surroundings.
Program-wise, the building blended traditional wet-lab spaces with computing labs. That mix was pretty new at the time, and that balance between the established and the emerging really resonated with me. It made me want to keep exploring S+T.
“That balance between the established and the emerging really resonated with me. It made me want to keep exploring S+T.”
Are the technical demands in S+T projects sometimes at odds with designing for occupant comfort and well-being?
It’s true that the technical requirements are often front and center. For example, for another building we designed for the University of Minnesota—the Physics and Nanotechnology Building [2014]—vibration sensitivity, electromagnetic interference, and light control were all non-negotiables for the researchers. In some spaces, like the laser labs, elements like daylight would have been a problem, not a benefit.
So, we found other ways to prioritize well-being. We separated the people spaces—lounges, offices, circulation areas—from the labs themselves. These areas were designed with daylight, views, and comfort in mind. Even if you spent most of your day in a light- and vibration-controlled lab, there were still spaces where you could step away and reset.
Photos 1–4: University of Minnesota John T. Tate Hall. Photos 5 and 6: University of Minnesota Cancer and Cardiovascular Research Building. Photos 7 and 8: University of Minnesota Mechanical Engineering Building. Photo 9: University of Minnesota Test Engine Lab. Photos 10–12: University of Minnesota Vet Isolation Facility. Photos 1–4 and 7–12 by Farm Kid Studios. Photos 5 and 6 by Paul Crosby.
Your work requires immersion in some complicated fields. Do you ever worry about blind spots?
I think the hardest technical challenge isn’t always about a specific system or detail; it’s more about making sure we’re solving the right problem. I’m constantly questioning whether we’ve asked the right questions or if we’re missing something important. I really rely on people who bring deep expertise—engineers, lab planners, sustainability specialists—to push back when something doesn’t feel right.
You’ve worked on renovations of existing and historic buildings. What specific challenges do you face when integrating S+T into these buildings?
One of the biggest is the physical limitations—things like floor-to-floor heights, which often aren’t tall enough to accommodate modern mechanical systems. Another big one is material handling. Older buildings typically weren’t designed with hazardous materials in mind, so things like proper loading dock access and safe chemical storage can become major design hurdles.
And then there’s the building envelope. Most historic structures weren’t built to handle the kind of precise temperature and humidity control that S+T spaces demand.
There are moments where it feels like starting from scratch would be easier, maybe even cheaper. But in the end, the value of preserving and reimagining an existing structure usually outweighs the complications.
When all is said and done, how do you know if you got things right?
Some of the most meaningful feedback I’ve received has come after clients have had time to live in the space. I especially value conversations with clients who are deeply focused on process and efficiency. They’re the ones who notice when something truly supports the way they work.
Related Articles
