By Eamonn Ryan
On a recent Apple podcast episode of From The Cold Corner, hosted by Kelley Rodriguez, editor in chief of Refrigerated & Frozen Foods, two industry veterans challenged a long-standing convention in warehouse development. David Campbell and Jeremy Kynsen of Burns & McDonnell argued that the future of cold storage depends on flipping the traditional design model: instead of designing the building first and fitting operations inside it, successful projects must be designed from the inside out.
For decades, many cold storage projects followed a real estate-driven logic. Developers established a building footprint, utilities were sized with conservative assumptions, and operations teams were left to adapt their processes to the structure. That sequence may have worked in an era of simpler material handling, but automation has fundamentally altered the equation.
Designing from the inside out starts with operational clarity. Before walls are drawn or slabs are poured, teams define throughput targets, SKU profiles, pallet velocities, case-picking strategies, temperature zoning, maintenance access and the specific automation technologies that will power the facility. Only once those parameters are fully understood does the building envelope take shape. In automated environments, the process dictates the physics of the structure.
One of the most visible consequences of automation is vertical growth. High-bay ASRS, robotic pallet systems, and dense storage solutions push facilities upward, often into the 20- to 40m range. Rather than expanding across a site, modern automated freezers consolidate volume into a tighter footprint. That densification can unlock land-use advantages and improve internal travel times, but it also places new demands on structural, electrical and refrigeration systems.
Structural considerations become more complex as height increases. Concentrated loads from crane aisles and rack-supported systems require stronger slabs and tighter construction tolerances than conventional warehouses. Decisions about slab thickness, reinforcement and joint placement cannot be made in isolation from automation selection. When they are, redesigns and cost overruns tend to follow.
Electrical infrastructure is similarly transformed. Vertical automation compresses motors, robotics, refrigeration equipment, and charging stations into a compact area, intensifying power density. Early co-ordination between automation designers and facility engineers can prevent oversizing or misallocating utility capacity. In many cases, integrated planning yields measurable savings in infrastructure investment while ensuring sufficient scalability for future expansion.
Airflow and refrigeration strategy also shift dramatically in tall, dense freezer environments. Conditioning a 33m automated frozen box bears little resemblance to managing a traditional 10m-clear warehouse. Air distribution must account for vertical stratification, rack geometry, maintenance platforms and egress requirements. When refrigeration is treated as an afterthought, inefficiencies and retrofits become likely. When it is embedded in the process-driven design, performance and energy use improve in tandem.
The most compelling argument for inside-out design may be schedule certainty. When automation providers, facility engineers, operations leaders and construction teams collaborate from the earliest planning stages, front-end design and implementation timelines can shrink significantly. Months saved in development translate directly into earlier commissioning, faster ramp-up and accelerated return on investment. In competitive distribution markets, that time advantage can be decisive.
This philosophy applies equally to greenfield developments and retrofit projects, though the constraints differ. In a greenfield setting, the process can fully shape building height, dock configuration, truck circulation, temperature adjacencies and expansion pathways. The result is a cohesive system in which site logistics, energy distribution and automation operate as an integrated whole.
Retrofits demand a more surgical approach. Existing slab capacity, column spacing, and structural grids may limit automation options. In some cases, attempting to force advanced systems into incompatible infrastructure proves more expensive than strategic expansion. Even so, the guiding principle remains unchanged: operational requirements must lead and the building must follow.
Another evolution emerging from automation-heavy facilities is a compressed planning horizon. Traditional cold storage assets were often designed around 30-year operating models. By contrast, facilities with significant automation investment are frequently evaluated on a 15-year horizon, reflecting both higher upfront capital intensity and the rapid pace of technological change. That shift does not imply disposability. Instead, it underscores the importance of flexibility – convertible temperature zones, scalable power distribution and layouts that accommodate future system upgrades without disrupting operations.
Ultimately, defining the building before defining the process creates friction between intent and capability. That friction shows up as change orders, operational compromises and unrealised efficiencies. Designing from the inside out requires deeper analysis at the outset – rigorous throughput modeling, business alignment and risk evaluation – but it reduces downstream surprises and aligns capital investment with operational performance.
Cold storage is facing mounting pressures: labour availability, energy volatility, food safety scrutiny and demand variability. Automation is no longer a speculative enhancement; it is becoming foundational. In that environment, the warehouse must function as an instrument of the process it houses. The facilities that thrive will not simply be taller or more automated. They will be conceived with operational intelligence at their core, built to serve strategy rather than constrain it.