For the past several decades, high-enrollment undergraduate chemistry laboratory experiences have favored traditional approaches involving disparate daily experiments with optimized protocols provided to students. This model often results in poor learning outcomes and low student engagement, and it lacks any attention to scientific inquiry. Here, we present the structure and early outcomes of a complete redesign of our general chemistry sequence laboratory components to address these shortcomings. The approach includes the following: a requirement of student choice and design of protocols, increase in lab contact hours, authentic open-ended research experiences, and a course series with increasing challenge leading to a capstone. Emphasis is placed on student engagement, the value of experimental failure and redesign, an increase in technical skill through revision, peer learning, and faculty mentoring of students. While students almost universally recognize that this approach to laboratory science is more work, a great deal of feedback indicates they acknowledge its value. In addition to anecdotal evidence, course evaluation data show a marked increase in the perceived intellectual challenge of this new approach (mean of 4.00 on a 5 point scale before redesign (2016/2017, N = 416), increased to 4.19 (2017/2018, N = 592) afterward) along with an attendant increase in time-on-task. Notably, data from cohorts moving to higher-level laboratory courses show improved outcomes and adaptivity to experimental rigor. We believe this approach represents a strong improvement over a more traditional laboratory structure; at a slightly lower cost to deploy, an equivalent number of faculty members, and some institutional/departmental buy-in, this design is readily transferable to other schools.