Interdisciplinary firm Ayers Saint Gross recently unveiled its conversion of a former Fidelity office facility into the new Business Entrepreneurship Leadership Center (BELC) at Bryant University in Smithfield, Rhode Island. No office conversion is without its challenges, but principal Kevin Petersen discusses the solutions executed by his team that illuminated the potential of the vacant urban tenant and the typology at large.
Workplace Design: How did you get involved with this project? Did you receive a brief?
Kevin Petersen: Ayers Saint Gross was already engaged in work on Bryant University’s campus when we were asked to support this project. What began as a master planning effort for how the university could leverage their academic, student life, and administrative needs through the renovation of this Fidelity Office building ultimately evolved into full design services for the renovation.
What were the biggest challenges going into this project?
KP: One of the biggest challenges was managing input from multiple stakeholders with unique goals and expectations for the new spaces within the context of a traditional office floor plate. A key focus was ensuring the classrooms supported evolving pedagogical approaches. We also needed to consolidate a wide range of program requests and identify opportunities for shared, flexible space use across departments.
Another challenge was developing a modular layout for classrooms, faculty offices, and collaboration spaces that worked with the existing building and could be repeated across the floor plate to maximize flexibility. The goal was to create more opportunities for interaction and make faculty more accessible to students. This was a shift from how the university’s existing spaces were set up. From a design and technical perspective, we worked hard to bring daylight into the building core and maximize natural light. At the same time, the existing ceiling heights required creative solutions to achieve optimal lighting, acoustics, and sightlines within each space.
What are the biggest challenges/solutions in office conversion in general?
KP: One of the biggest challenges in converting the office building was working with the existing MEP systems. Since the original office layout was mostly open and had few full-height walls, the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems were spread out above the ceiling. To meet the acoustic requirements of classroom spaces, we needed to introduce new walls that extended to the deck of the floor above, which required coordination around the existing infrastructure. The deep floor plate could have been a challenge in terms of natural light and space planning, but we addressed this by studying various classroom proportions, creating right-sized corridors, and opening up spaces where possible to improve light and circulation. Wayfinding was another key concern, as the original layout was a maze of enclosed suites and corridors. We tackled this by opening the plan to create clearer sightlines, introducing daylight where possible, and implementing a cohesive experiential graphics and signage strategy to help users navigate the space intuitively.
What were some lessons learned?
KP: One key insight was the importance of clear and consistent communication with faculty, students, and staff stakeholders. By helping them understand both the constraints and opportunities of working within an existing office structure, we were able to translate their needs into a functional and responsive design. We found that setting clear design principles at the outset, emphasizing the reuse of existing building elements wherever possible, and maintaining frequent engagement with stakeholders were essential strategies in aligning the design with their expectations and needs.
Following your work on this project, how can the industry better prepare themselves to address office conversion?
KP: To make office conversions successful, the industry must start viewing them as opportunities to adaptively reuse existing infrastructure, save on construction costs, and reduce the carbon footprint across the project. A lot of these older office buildings typically used quality materials, especially for the core and shell—large windows, quality envelope and exterior materials, and durable steel structure—so it is just a matter of repurposing the interior to match the latest needs. The building was over 25 years old, but it was in decent condition overall.
What really made the difference was our team’s ability to see past what was there and visualize what it could become. We were able to recognize the potential in reusing some of the existing framework, such as the wood doors, interior glazing, and infrastructure, and thoughtfully combine those elements with strategic updates to the layout, lighting, and finishes. We brought in more natural light, opened key areas, and introduced brighter finishes without needing to start from scratch. The vision of being able to see the opportunity in what already existed was key to making the project successful. Reuse also reduced the carbon footprint for the project.
What are some misconceptions about this typology?
KP: It is often assumed that older or underused office buildings are not worth saving, or they need to be completely gutted and reskinned to be converted for academic use, but that is not always the case. A lot of these buildings were really well built. They have solid structures, quality windows, and durable envelopes that still have a useful life span. Those are big advantages when you are thinking about reuse as well as cost. There is also a perception that the floor plates are too deep or difficult to work with, but we have found they can actually work well, particularly for academic programs. With thoughtful planning, you can create efficient layouts, bring in daylight in the right locations, and make the spaces feel intentional and functional. Instead of looking at these buildings as a challenge, our team was able to see the possibilities.