elop*6

CROSSROADS / CROSSFUNCTIONS
STANFORD / PALO ALTO

TEAM
BEDOUIN

Muriel Braun Joris Katkevicius

Thibaut Defois Morgan Robert
Salvador Espinosa Carina Schmidt
Gretchen Heberling Heinrich Schmidt

1
Table of Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 4

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 5
Team Bedouin .................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Motivations ................................................................................................................. 7
1.2.1 Muriel Braun............................................................................................................. 7
1.2.2 Thibaut Defois .......................................................................................................... 7
1.2.3 Salvador Espinosa ................................................................................................... 7
1.2.4 Gretchen Heberling .................................................................................................. 8
1.2.5 Morgane Robert ....................................................................................................... 8
1.2.6 Carina Schmidt ........................................................................................................ 8
1.2.7 Heinrich Schmidt ...................................................................................................... 8
Project Introduction........................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Historical & Cultural Context .................................................................................... 9
2.2 Objective................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Vision ........................................................................................................................ 13
Technical Analysis .......................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Research Environment ............................................................................................ 14
3.1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 14
3.1.2 Research ............................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Work Environment ................................................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 16
3.2.2 Research ............................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Transportation Infrastructure.................................................................................. 22
3.3.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 22
3.3.2 Research ............................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 23
3.4.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 23
3.4.2 Research ............................................................................................................... 23
3.5 Social Aspects ......................................................................................................... 37
3.5.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 37
3.5.2 Research ............................................................................................................... 38
3.6 Landscape analysis ................................................................................................. 47
3.6.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 47
3.6.2 Research ............................................................................................................... 47
3.7 Geotechnical and earthquake analysis .................................................................. 48
3.7.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 48
3.7.2 Research ............................................................................................................... 48
3.8 Traffic noise analysis............................................................................................... 52
3.8.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 52

2
 3.8.2 Research ............................................................................................................... 52
Working process ............................................................................................................. 55
4.1 Development and implementation of the metaphor .............................................. 55
4.2 Conceptual development ........................................................................................ 60
4.3 Architectural development ...................................................................................... 64
4.4 Landscape architectural development ................................................................... 64
4.5 Sustainability development ..................................................................................... 65
Team process .................................................................................................................. 67
5.1 Decision making process ........................................................................................ 67
5.2 Mood diagram .......................................................................................................... 75
5.3 Sources of irritation ................................................................................................. 76
5.4 Virtual Cooperation.................................................................................................. 77
5.5 Blog........................................................................................................................... 81
5.6 Individual Reflections ............................................................................................ 103
5.6.1 Muriel Braun......................................................................................................... 103
5.6.2 Thibaut Defois ...................................................................................................... 103
5.6.3 Salvador Espinosa ............................................................................................... 103
5.6.4 Gretchen Heberling .............................................................................................. 104
5.6.5 Morgane Robert ................................................................................................... 104
5.6.6 Carina Schmidt .................................................................................................... 105
5.6.7 Heinrich Schmidt .................................................................................................. 105
Masterplan ..................................................................................................................... 106
6.1 Program .................................................................................................................. 106
6.1.1 Space Allocation Plan .......................................................................................... 106
6.2 Connecting to our metaphor ................................................................................. 108
6.2.1 Realization of team spirit ...................................................................................... 108
6.2.2 Research on two dimensions ............................................................................... 108
6.2.3 Consideration of the different stakeholders .......................................................... 109
6.3 Special Events........................................................................................................ 113
6.4 Architectural Schemes .......................................................................................... 113
6.5 Landscape Design ................................................................................................. 119
6.6 Transit Center......................................................................................................... 124
6.7 Construction Planning........................................................................................... 124
6.7.1 Timeline ............................................................................................................... 124
6.7.2 Construction logistics ........................................................................................... 127
6.7.3 Cost Estimation .................................................................................................... 128
References ..................................................................................................................... 130
Appendixes .................................................................................................................... 132
8.1 List of Appendixes ................................................................................................. 132

3
 List of Figures
Figure 1 - Map of the Bay Area (Google Maps) ......................................................................... 10
Figure 2 - El Palo Alto circa 1910 .............................................................................................. 11
Figure 3 - El Camino Real, circa 1950 (Palo Alto History).......................................................... 11
Figure 4 - Palo Alto train depot, circa 1940s (Palo Alto History)................................................. 12
Figure 5 - Hay field site for Stanford Shopping Center (McLaughlin) ......................................... 12
Figure 6 - 1871 Coworking Space Chicago, USA (Google) ....................................................... 15
Figure 7 - California Academy of Science San Francisco, USA (Google) .................................. 15
Figure 8 - Culture and Art Center Qingdao City, China (Google) ............................................... 16
Figure 9 - Palo Alto climate zone 4 ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 10 - Monthly wind speed and direction (Generated using Climate Consultant 5.4) ......... 29
Figure 11 - Shading options according to facade orientation and weather season (Generated using
Autodesk Ecotect) ..................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 12 - Figure 12 - subsoil map1 .......................................................................................... 49
Figure 13 - areas of possible liquefaction3,4 ............................................................................... 50
Figure 14 - High Damping Rubber Bearing ................................................................................ 51
Figure 15 - Ro-glider ................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 16 - maximum noise level as a function of vehicle speed ............................................... 53
Figure 17 - damping of sound level as a function of distance14 .................................................. 53
Figure 18 - noise buffer zones in order to noise limits ................................................................ 54

4
 List of Tables
Table 1 - Temperature Profile (BROSCH, O. Based on Climate Consultant) ............................. 25
Table 2 - Radiation valued according orientation (Generated using Autodesk Ecotect) ............. 25
Table 4 - R values for different construction elements according to the climate zone (Btu/ h ft2 F)
.................................................................................................................................................. 28
Table 5 - Electricity demand for lighting (Generated using Energy Consumption Guide) ........... 30
Table 6 - Energy provided by 500m2 of monocrystalline PV panels .......................................... 31
Table 7 - Average rediation for site (Lat 37.44° N, Lon 122.166° W) (Generated using NASA) . 32
Table 8 - Examples of heating/cooling hours per month (Generated using Climate Consultant) 33
Table 9 - subsoil overview ......................................................................................................... 49

5
 Team Bedouin

1.1 Background

Muriel Braun
School: Graduate student at the University of Applied Sciences Zürich
Degree: MA Social Work
Hometown: Zürich, Switzerland
Star sign: Taurus

Thibaut Defois
School: Undergraduate student at Genève - Hepia
Degree: Bachelor in Landscape Architecture
Hometown: Auvergne, France
Star sign: Virgo

Salvador Espinosa
School: Graduate Student at Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Degree: MS Environmental and Resources Management
Hometown: San Luis Potosí, Mexico
Star sign: Virgo

Gretchen Heberling
School: Graduate student at Stanford University
Degree: MS Civil & Environmental Engineering - Sustainable Design & Construction
Hometown: Washington, D.C.
Star sign: Aquarius

Joris Katkevicius
School: Graduate student at Politechnico di Milano
Degree: MA Architecture
Hometown: Vilnius
Star sign: Capricorn

Morgane Robert
School: Exchange student at High School of Engineers and Architects of Fribourg, Switzerland
Degree: Master of Architecture
Hometown: Bousval, Belgium
Star sign: Virgo

6
Carina Schmidt
School: Graduate student at Cologne University of Applied Sciences
Degree: MA Pedagogy and Management in Social Work
Hometown: Cologne, Germany
Star sign: Taurus

Heinrich Schmidt
School: Bauhaus-University Weimar
Degree: MA Management for Construction Real Estate and Infrastructure
Hometown: Erfurt, Germany
Star sign: Aquarius

1.2 Motivations

1.2.1 Muriel Braun

I wanted to participate in a transdisciplinary process as well as see the challenges the connected
acquisition of planning, exchanging and collaboration methods can create. On the other hand, I
am interested in processes of urban development – especially in the relationship between planning
processes and social problems.

1.2.2 Thibaut Defois

To my mind elop is an opportunity for a student, who is studying landscape architecture, to

experience new projects and improve his knowledge about landscape architecture. I know I will
never have a second chance in my landscape architect career for that fantastic experience. I also
want to share my knowledge about landscape architecture with other students and show them
how I learnt to work on an interdisciplinary project.
elop is also an opportunity to meet people, students and stakeholders from diverse backgrounds
and with whom I could work in the future. Then, English today is an essential means of
communication worldwide and elop offer me this opportunity to improve my level.

1.2.3 Salvador Espinosa

As the main objectives of the elop*6 project involved smart-growth principals, green buildings and
improvements to transportation and infrastructure with a transdisciplinary approach, I was
motivated to work on these subjects with people from other cultures and with other backgrounds
to experience how different perspectives could bring an integrated solution to a specific problem.
The cultural diversification, the multidisciplinary actors, the network of renowned international
universities, the Problem-Based Learning and the practical application of the theoretical
knowledge were aspects that made this project deeply interesting to me.

7
1.2.4 Gretchen Heberling

I applied to join elop*6 because I enjoy learning in interdisciplinary and collaborative environments,
and wanted to get more experience working on a design team. The opportunity to work with
students from around the world from a variety of disciplines coupled with the chance to work on a
project affecting my campus and the surrounding community made elop a key part of my Stanford
experience.

1.2.5 Morgane Robert

I wanted to participate at elop*6 to work with people from different disciplines, see how is it working
together, learn about what they do. Also from different countries. In architecture, different cultures
means different school and way to work see the things and conceive them. How can we work
together? I think it’s a great opportunity to do that. And to improve my English which was not really
good before. Another reason was because the project were in America, they have a totally different
vision of architecture, life, etc. than in Europe. I think it’s important to have an open mind and
experiment the different way to do architecture.

1.2.6 Carina Schmidt

There were several reasons for my participation in elop*6. The strongest reason was that I am
very interested in working together with other people from other disciplines in order to develop a
concept which contains different points of view with different disciplinary backgrounds. It was great
to experience how a group of people from different cultural and disciplinary backgrounds come
together and create something one person would have never be able to develop on his own. I
hoped to benefit from the special knowledge of the other team members and get to know their
way of working. I am really grateful for the opportunity to participate in this project because I really
learned a lot. On a professional as well as on a personal level.
Finally, I consider that today there is a need to think about lasting solutions related to
environmental issues and I’m proud of taking part in discussions on innovative concepts about it
in partnership with the prestigious Stanford University.

1.2.7 Heinrich Schmidt

My main motivation for participating in elop*6 was the cooperation with different disciplines I have
never worked with before. I really looked forward to a new way of working and was excited to see
how people from different disciplinary backgrounds are interacting with each other.

8
 Project Introduction
The objective of this year’s elop project was to create a proposal for a “21st Century Research
Park” at 27 University Avenue, near the Palo Alto Caltrain station, straddling the edge of Stanford
University’s campus and downtown Palo Alto.

In 2012, John Arrillaga, a generous Stanford donor, prominent Silicon Valley landowner, and real
estate developer proposed a theater and office complex for the site, which was met with
widespread public dissent. The design was ultimately rejected because the buildings exceeded
local height restrictions.

Stanford owns most of the site, and is interested in offering its own proposal. The university’s
vision for the site is a research park, wherein people with different interests and wishes may come
together; this presents a complex planning and designing scenario which demands a
transdisciplinary approach. The future plans for a high speed rail line through the Bay Area
complicate things further.

Our task was to undertake a comprehensive study of the area and prepare a proposal, reflecting
the variety of uses for the whole site: should it be a private, quiet office or a vibrant place to
exchange ideas? By incorporating the different interests of Palo Alto and the University of
Stanford, analyzing sustainable building strategies, considering construction planning, and
predicting the future transportation infrastructure are all required to create an appropriate design.

2.1 Historical & Cultural Context

Large scale
Our site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, between San Francisco and San Jose. An hour
away from San Francisco by train, and around thirty five minutes by car, the site is well served by
infrastructure.

9
Figure 1 - Map of the Bay Area (Google Maps)

Medium scale

The city of Palo Alto abuts the site on the north, Stanford University on the south, San Francisquito
Creek on the west, and University Avenue on the east.

The city’s namesake is a local landmark, the tall redwood tree, El Palo Alto, which is located on
the east bank of San Francisquito Creek.

Since 1769, the city developed horizontally around the downtown districts. As the university grew,
so did Palo Alto, after World War II and particularly after the development of the Stanford Industrial
Park, which has served as a start-up incubator for the Silicon Valley.

Stanford University was founded at the last of the 19th century on farmland owned by Leland and
Jane Stanford in memory of their son who died prematurely. Frederic Law Olmsted, a famous
American landscape architect laid out the campus, which has been continually developed, but a
large portion of the land, the Arboretum, is still largely undeveloped, separating the university from
the city. In this way, Stanford continues to preserve itself as “a place apart”.

El Camino Real, a central thoroughfare for the area, adjoins the site longitudinally. Its name refers
to the historic 600-mile California Mission Trail walked by Spanish missionaries.

10
Figure 2 - El Palo Alto circa 1910

Figure 3 - El Camino Real, circa 1950 (Palo Alto History)

Small Scale

Palo Alto Train Depot

There have been three different train depots on University Avenue, with an early 1890’s shelter
consisting of a refurbished boxcar. The second structure was built in 1896; it was a wood-framed
building with a white arcade, and served as a prototype for California depots with colonnades. The
present depot was built in the Streamline Moderne style, a late form of Art Deco. The station has
the second highest passenger use along the entire Caltrain corridor. It currently houses a small
café.

11
Figure 4 - Palo Alto train depot, circa 1940s (Palo Alto History)

Stanford Shopping Center

Built on a hay field in the early days of the great suburban migration, the shopping mall opened in
1954, and has grown in stages and undergone a dramatic shift toward upscale retail over the
years. As Palo Alto has become the capital of Silicon Valley’s success, the Stanford Shopping
Center has grown to accommodate the new wealth that has flooded into the city.

Figure 5 - Hay field site for Stanford Shopping Center (McLaughlin)

San Francisquito Creek

The San Francisquito Creek adjoins our site on the west side. It is a little creek whose source lies
in the watershed of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the south west of Stanford. Usually dry in
summer, in winter flooding may occur. Nowadays, floods are more likely, due to urbanization
increasing the area of impermeable surfaces.

12
2.2 Objective

The objective of this year’s elop project was to create a proposal for a “21st Century Research
Park” at 27 University Avenue, near the Palo Alto Caltrain station, straddling the edge of Stanford
University’s campus and downtown Palo Alto.

Our task was to undertake a comprehensive study of the area and prepare a proposal, reflecting
the variety of uses for the whole site: should it be a private, quiet office or a vibrant place to
exchange ideas? By incorporating the different interests of Palo Alto and the University of
Stanford, analyzing sustainable building strategies, considering construction planning, and
predicting the future transportation infrastructure are all required to create an appropriate design.

2.3 Vision

In the beginning, each member of the team created mood boards to convey their feelings about
the site and their ideas for the future project. In a discussion, we formulated these common
concepts:

1. The project should be a welcoming landmark for Palo Alto and should be used as
a meeting place or local attraction.
2. The research center should be an example that offers a view of the future and
provides an educational component.
3. The project should serve to connect its surrounding amenities on both a small and
large scale.
4. The project should not threaten the natural environment; it should instead become
part of its landscape and adapt to its cycles.

13
 Technical Analysis
The site is located at a nexus point; the transit center links Palo Alto to the commuters from the
South Bay and San Francisco, University Avenue connects the students, faculty, and staff of
Stanford to Palo Alto, and El Camino Real serves as a primary artery for residents to travel from
Palo Alto to its surrounding cities in Silicon Valley. The convergence of these different users
presents a unique situation with requires many layers of analysis.

3.1 Research Environment

3.1.1 Background

In past decades, research was conducted in a sterile, private manner; the concept of
compartmentalizing each discipline in their individual “box” is outdated and restricts opportunities
for knowledge exchange and collaboration. Therefore, transdisciplinary research offers a new way
to bring together different experts in varying fields. Our objective is to design a “21st century
research park”, but we must also consider the 22nd century, and possibly the 23rd. As technology
continues to develop, it is necessary to implement solutions that can be applied to a broad group
of people and an unknown future.

The success of a transdisciplinary research park depends on an intersection of both diverse

disciplines and personal backgrounds. The area surround Stanford University, Silicon Valley, is
populated with highly educated and motivated people. To bring these industry professionals to the
site, there must be the promise of freedom and innovation. This can be accomplished by creating
an environment where ideas can be generated, then exchanged with Stanford faculty, students,
local residents, and commuters. Each of these stakeholders has varying skills and opinions that
can encourage further brainstorming and research.

3.1.2 Research

In order to be able to develop a convincing concept for an innovation 21st century research park
we used several examples of existing research buildings and concepts for inspiration for our own
concept. Interesting examples, pictures, links, videos and sketches were shared with the rest of
the team via facebook. The following text about research environment contains some of the
references our team worked with. These references strongly influenced the development of our
own research park and our interpretation of research in the future.

1871
1871 is the name of a huge co-working space in Chicago which houses 50,000 square feet of
working space and provides Chicago start-ups with everything they need to get their companies
started. Three of their guiding ideas are COMMUNITY, EDUCATION and INSPIRATION.

14
Figure 6 - 1871 Coworking Space Chicago, USA (Google)

California Academy of Science

The California Academy of Science is one of the largest museums of natural history in the world
which was established in 1853. It is located in the Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and houses
researchers, exhibitions and also educational elements. The field of research that is done there is
very divers and the museum has over one million visitors a year. The picture shows the
contemporary museum which was completely rebuilt in 2008.

Figure 7 - California Academy of Science San Francisco, USA (Google)

15
Culture and Art Center in Qingdao City

The Culture and Art Center in Qingdao City, China was planned by the architect Steven Holl and
is a conglomerate of four art museums situated amongst a landscape of reflecting pools and
gardens which are all connected by a continuous “Light Loop” that moves visitors throughout the
site. The following picture conveys a good impression of how this center looks like.

Figure 8 - Culture and Art Center Qingdao City, China (Google)

3.2 Work Environment

3.2.1 Background

Collaborative work today isn't the same as it was 20 years ago. Today, information exchange can
easily be accomplished online, through file-sharing, virtual meeting rooms, and video conferences.
This suggests that working spaces should be flexible, foster a positive “coworking” environment,
and have effective technological infrastructure. The workspaces should fit the varying needs of
the users by giving them the ability to control their environment.

3.2.2 Research

3.2.2.1 Psychological aspects of working spaces

In People Places, Cooper and Francis remark that users of certain spaces should have the option,
either as individuals or as member of a group, of create attachments to the place and care for it.
This can be accomplished through involvement in its design, construction or maintenance, use of
the space for special events, or temporary creation of personal space within the place. So, it is of
utmost importance that users are given the ability to influence their environment. At the same time,

16
from a psychological point of view, the user’s territorial needs are also very important. So, for
example, a desk can be more than just a work surface. It can mark boundaries of personal space
to other users. These aspects require consideration, especially in coworking spaces. Physical
distance represents a major determinant of social influence.

The physical environment can interfere with the frequency and quality of social interaction. The
importance of nonverbal clues in the facilitation of interactions between and among people has
been recognized for some time; more recently, it has been suggested that barriers to these
nonverbal cues may reduce the ease and efficiency of communication (for example, in e-mail and
teleconferencing), primarily through interference with the establishment of trust. Social interaction
and the layout of space reciprocally influence each other. Thus, it is important to consider the
nature and function of work processes within and between groups or teams when designing work
areas to support them. Not only should the initiation and implementation of collaborative work be
considered, but also its maintenance and coordination over time.

Research on the subject of different working spaces produced the following insights:

• People refer to their desk as a working area, but not the whole multifunctional space.
People in coworking spaces don't mind sharing a desk. So, a desk can provide a temporary
feeling of space ownership.
• The amount of time people spend in their work space is strongly influenced by their task
or their position.
• Employees mainly use the cafe corner, the cafeterias, or restaurants (of the whole offered
infrastructure). They use these spaces for networking and information exchange, not just
meals.
• Relaxation spaces are used less often. But, in open working spaces, access to quiet
working spaces very important, so people can distance themselves from others if they so
choose.
• Having windows in a room increases its social desirability; the bigger they are (floor to
ceiling height) the better. But, big windows don't give workers a feeling of intimacy.
Typically, if the room is well lit (ideally with natural light), a high (or sloping) ceiling
encourages social interaction.
• Furniture can support and encourage social interaction if its arrangement removes any
barriers between and among people (e. g., a circle of chairs would be preferable to lines
of desks). The most “unfriendly” arrangement for office furniture involves the traditional
configuration of two chairs facing each other with a desk between them. Of course, the
number of people involved in interactions must inform furniture configurations, as well as
the broader cultural influences what individuals consider “friendly” or “unfriendly.”
• With some exceptions, couches are less formal than chairs, but their advantages may be
mitigated if the people in the group are not yet acquainted. Furthermore, ergonomic seating
considerations become important if tasks involve long periods of seated work.
• To maximize social exchange, furniture should provide no cues to relative status within the
group.
• How people are dressed may interact with what types of furniture and furniture
configurations they will find most acceptable.

17
 • Configurations that allow open, face-to-face orientations with every other member of the
group (allowing for individual adjustments) encourage social interaction more than those
that do not.
• In addition to supporting individual work with personal workspaces, work areas should be
purposefully organized around the social and collaborative functions occurring within them.
• Group areas may even need more attention paid to social “channeling” and other symbolic
details than personal work areas, since 60 percent of what people learn occurs informally,
and much of this happens within teams.
• The arrangement and configuration of individual workspaces in relation to larger
aggregations of work areas for group and macro-level communication can be informed by
a systematic analysis of task and skill coordination needs.

At the very least, wise designers and facilities managers should create work areas that focus on
human performance at all levels of the organization, specifically addressing group work and team
needs in addition to possible privacy needs and other individual-level concerns.
Finally, the psychological, sociological, cultural, and symbolic features of group processes, group
dynamics, and social interaction may be even more important than the structure of the
environment in determining the nature of social exchanges. Individual-, group-, and macro-level
factors have been identified that constrain the nature of conversations between people, and
complicate the general efficiency and maintenance of communication. Discovering precisely how
to most effectively support rewarding and productive social interaction with the physical
environment may require more knowledge of how complex, reciprocally determined systems
develop and maintain themselves. Self-organizing systems—and modern offices no doubt must
be of this type— can produce emergent phenomena that depend critically on initial conditions.
Such realities suggest that even small facilities’ accommodations and flexibility at the level of
furniture, components, and configurations may have profound organizational effects.

3.2.2.2 Coworking

What does coworking mean to us?

Today, coworking means more than just collaboration. The idea of coworking implies “working
together as equals. For the most part, people don’t work together as equals, especially not in the
business or scientific world. They are isolated, categorized, and shuffled into a hierarchy that
separates them by rank and salary level - creating, for the majority of employees, a competitive
relationship. But for the creation of innovative ideas, it seems that having a balance of authority is
important.
Deskmag conducted the biggest Global Survey 2012 of Coworking. A total of 2007 people took
part in the survey. Preliminary results are:

• Participants were asked to choose words that best describe their coworking experience.
Top results were: fun, friendly, creative, inspiring, productive, flexible, social and
collaborative.

18
 • The benefits of coworking: increase of creativity and improved quality of work. Though, a
common claim was that coworking spaces can be distracting. 68% said they were able to
focus better and had better time-management.
• Most coworkers are freelancers.
• The average numbers of desks and members are growing.
• The majority of coworkers are so content with their workspace that they don't plan to leave.
62% said they have no plans to leave their locations, while less than 5% will stay for one
month, disproving the notion that coworking is for mobile workers only.
• More and more coworking spaces report to be part of a network or chain.
• The vast majority of coworking space operators has a positive outlook for the coming year.
91% expect more members, 89% expect a higher income, and 79% plan to increase the
number of events they host.
• Expansion plans are running high.

Current Trends

How is coworking developing currently? At the moment there are several different trends:

• Companies like Google, Cisco, and Orange have become increasingly interested in
coworking. They have taken their first steps by opening a large amount of alternative
offices, which are often less intimate and communal, but possess the basic functionalities
of a coworking space.
• Companies are not progressing very quickly, but they know that coworking is a proven
path to innovation. So, some are now offering part of their office spaces to freelance
workers, free of charge. In this case, coworking becomes an extension of the company
and fosters a community of young and passionate talent around it.

Future Scenarios

How will coworking evolve in the future? Below is a short list of possible development scenarios:

• Coworking operators could emerge and can serve as a reference and adopt a successful
development strategy. He or she can open multiple spaces and succeed to combine
community and efficiency by creating operational synergies. The number of spaces will
then increase, but the amount of managers decreases. This scenario corresponds to
relatively classic evolution of any other kind of market.
• Public authorities could begin to understand and want to follow suit. They ultimately favor
innovation and entrepreneurship. They can start developing spaces with highly competitive
prices by funding them directly or by funding nonprofits. As a result, more people can then
access the coworking world, but the movement simultaneously loses a part of its
independence, creativity and authenticity. Private based initiatives will then become less
competitive.

19
 • Coworking can also happen outside of designated “coworking spaces”, and could pop up
at corporations, public spaces, libraries, startups, and small businesses. As a concept, it
is more appropriate for projects, rather than departments or companies.
• Several existing initiatives could succeed in becoming organized in a type of federation,
which would create synergies between them, increasing their skills and enabling
coworkers to move from one space to another. As a result, coworking could be operating
in a decentralized way, organized in different influential spaces and communities.

After enumerating these options we should think about which could be the best one to adapt on
our project of a future research park. The most independent solution would be the last option,
which would offer the freedom that Silicon Valley professionals and Stanford academics prefer.
Coworking could be organized through a network of spaces that would be both independent and
strongly connected. But, this could be difficult at our site, due to our large number of strongly
autonomous stakeholders.

Organization of coworking spaces

"Low prices, less walls, big table inside the room..."; this could describe a coworking space. But,
if you don’t consider the human element, it’s a sad, empty place where you work alone.
At the moment, it appears that coworking splits into two types of spaces: a) small coworking
spaces, relying on a strong local community and a specific identity and b) larger networks offering
more or cheaper services using scale effects to generate revenues and expand. But actually, there
are no typical coworking spaces because the creations of the spaces depend strongly on the
people using the spaces and future societal development.
Considering the infrastructure only, the most standard feature of a coworking space is,
unsurprisingly, still wireless internet, which is found in 97% of all spaces. More interesting is that
most coworking spaces now allow greater and more flexible access than they did originally.
Operating schedules have expanded beyond traditional office hours, to around the clock and
calendar, with 55% of spaces offering 24/7 access.

Obtaining 24/7 access usually comes with a surcharge at most coworking spaces. Even if users
don’t come in to work at odd hours, they like the ability to do so – in fact, it is one of the most
important desires of the average coworker, next to interaction with others. The figures come from
an analysis of data from Deskwanted, which lists the majority of coworking spaces in the world.

The data shows that the average coworking space now offers an average of 28 desks. Most
coworking spaces have more members than desks, what means that not all coworkers are present
at the same time. The smaller the coworking space, the higher the desk utilization load factor -
unsur-prisingly caused by the very restricted number of desks. The bigger the coworking space,
the lower the desk utilization load factor. Larger spaces have more flexible desks, so they need to
provide more empty desks. Just under a third of all coworking spaces have desks for less than 19
coworkers. The average coworking space pro-vides desks for 38 coworkers at the same time. A
quarter of all spaces offer desk spaces for more than 50 coworkers.

20
 Despite all the talk about “paperless offices”, the concept remains a futuristic pipe dream. Only
one in twelve coworking spaces do not have a printer or photocopier. A meeting room for private
talks is almost a standard feature (83%), as is the provision of café facilities (82%).

Coworking spaces show that traditional office equipment such as faxes and fixed-line telephones
are indeed old fashioned – only 51% of spaces have a fax, and 40% have telephones. Coworking
spaces are also quite healthy workplaces; every other coworking space declares their workroom
to be non-smoking.

The implementation of the “coworking visa” and similar membership systems are still growing, with
one in four spaces participating in some form of visa program. Some more spaces also offer
visitors the ability to drop in for free to test out the workspace (28%).

The data contains further interesting statistics. Only one in eleven coworking spaces allows you
to bring your children to work, and only 2% have an extra childcare facility. Dogs have it a little
easier; 11% of coworking spaces welcome – or at least tolerate – canines as guests.

Coworker’s Preferences

• A workspace has to be small and interactive: most coworkers (54%) prefer to share a
workspace with less than twenty people, while 21% say they work well in a space with up
to 50 coworkers. Large workspaces are widely disliked.
• An ideal coworking space would have a mixture of open shared working areas, as well as
smaller closed rooms for private conversations. In fact, workplace layout and design was
ranked as the most important factor about which coworkers want to have more input.
• The concept of using a shared flexible desk has caught on. Just under half (43%) of all
coworkers rent a dedicated desk which they use exclusively. The remaining 57% are either
happy with or don’t mind using a flexible desk which is shared with other coworkers.
• Regarding amenities, unsurprisingly 99% say that internet access is the most important
service they require. Almost as important are printers and copiers (80%) and at least one
meeting room (76%). Often coworkers would like a café (61%) and a kitchen (50%).
• Often coworking spaces are portrayed as laid-back fun-loving recreational rooms,
equipped with ping-pong or foosball tables. But, the global coworking survey shows that
this image doesn’t mesh with the actual desires of coworkers.
• Only a quarter of respondents say that recreational activities are important, half consider
them neutral, and another quarter think they are unimportant. When asked how often they
use provided recreational facilities, the same responses appear – only a quarter of
coworkers use them regularly, half use them seldom, and a quarter never use them at all.
• Other facilities considered less important are libraries (used by 26%) and parking spaces
(used by 29%).
• Coworkers want flexibility and interaction! When asked about the most important factors
for their work, coworkers rank flexible work times as the highest (86%). Equally important
is interaction with other people (86%), and the ability to share knowledge (82%).
Coworkers also highly value the random opportunities and discoveries made through such
interaction (79%).

21
 • Location matters, especially at lunchtime; when it comes to choosing a coworking space,
coworkers give consideration to the surrounding neighborhood and nearby food options
such as snack bars or restaurants. Nearly two-thirds also want a supermarket in the
vicinity. 34% look for office services nearby, but only 8% need childcare facilities in the
neighborhood.
• As well as flexible working hours, respondents enjoy having flexible workspaces – those
that offer the coworking visa, which allows users to visit other coworking offices. Almost
half (43%) said they would be interested in having one membership that allows them
access to many coworking spaces worldwide. Yet, only 7% said they would like this option
on a city-wide basis, and 15% on a country-wide basis, showing that the coworking visa
concept has mostly international appeal.

In the end, people count more than infrastructure: So what is the main result of the survey? When
asked what coworkers love about their coworking space, an overwhelming majority said it was the
friendly atmosphere and other coworkers who made it enjoyable.

3.3 Transportation Infrastructure

3.3.1 Background

The United States is heavily dependent on gasoline-powered vehicles, but is improving the fuel
efficiency of gas vehicles and increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road. Additionally,
in California, construction of a high speed railway network is slated to begin in the next few years.

This raises the question of whether the research park design should incorporate space for parking.
Should the research park of the future continue to support an inefficient, wasteful method of
transportation, especially when the site offers other options, like trains and buses?

The project itself should also offer new ways of connecting Palo Alto to Stanford. The current
circulation paths are confusing for pedestrians and cyclists. Commuters should be able to
efficiently get to work, and visitors should be given freedom to wander and explore.

3.3.2 Research

As it was mentioned above there are plans for constructing a High Speed Rail (HSR) in California
which will connect Los Angeles and San Francisco in the future. Plans for having a HSR station
in Palo Alto in the future are also discussed at the moment. There is even a committee which
represents the interests of Palo Alto regarding this topic (Palo Alto City Council High Speed Rail
Committee).

Because of the great importance of the HSR running through Palo Alto for our project we had a
little research about whether this is likely to happen. Therefore we read newspaper articles and
collected all information we found regarding this topic.

22
“Uploaded: Mon, Nov 25, 2013, 5:12 pm:

Rulings deal financial blow to high-speed rail

Monday decisions by Sacramento judge force rail authority to revise its funding plan
by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly”

Although there are still critics who don’t want the HSR running through Palo Alto and the funding
is not clear yet we decided to implement the HRS into our concept. By 2029, the system will run
from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under three hours. Since Palo Alto is right in the
middle of Silicon Valley and therefore an important intersection in California there is no reason the
HSR should not run through Palo Alto in the future.

As there is already the Caltrain running through Palo Alto the location of the old Caltrain station
could be used in order to build a huge underground transportation hub with different tracks for
Caltrain and HSR.

3.4 Sustainability

3.4.1 Background

Sustainability is a broad concept that encompasses ecological, social, and economic dimensions.
Currently, “sustainable” is considered synonymous with „energy efficient“, but that is just one piece
of the pie. Sustainable building design considers the potential future uses of the buildings and
landscape, informs architectural design, informs material selection, utilizes efficient building
systems, and encourages a connection to the natural environment.

A sustainable design philosophy attempts to create a solution that preserves the natural
environment and promotes occupant health through a variety of strategies. Due to climatic
variations, though many strategies are possible, only a portion are appropriate for any given
location. Once these strategies are identified, each one must then be modified to fit the site
conditions and programmatic requirements.

3.4.2 Research

3.4.2.1 Climate

Palo Alto is a city from the state of California, located in the County of Santa Clara. According to
the California Energy Commission, it belongs to the climate zone 4 (See Figure 9). This climate
zones takes as reference the city of San Jose, with latitude of 37.35° North and a longitude of
121.9 W, and an elevation of 70 ft. The climate is considered to have some ocean influence which
keeps temperatures from hitting more extreme highs and lows. Seasons are sharply defined, with
hot and dry summers. Winters are cool but not severe. Days are typically clear with the coastal
range blocking the fog and high winds. The basic climate conditions are:

Summer temperature range: 23°F

23
Record high temperature (2000) 109°F
Record low temperature (1990) 19°F

Figure 9 - Palo Alto climate zone 4

The comfort zone is set between 65°F to 80°F, which was the base for the internal cooling and
heating demands described below in the section “Solar Diagrams”.

3.4.2.2 Temperature

With the weather data provided by the software Climate Consultant 5.4 and taking into
consideration the comfort zone from 65-80°F, we were able to get the hours in a year where the
internal spaces will be needing heating or cooling. As we can see in Table 1, the heating
requirements are higher than cooling requirements all over the year.

24
Table 1 - Temperature Profile (BROSCH, O. Based on Climate Consultant)

Solar radiation
The solar radiation on the site can be calculated for different orientations. Based on the software
Autodesk Ecotect, we obtained radiation values for the orientation south, east and west (See Table
2 and Fig. 10).

Total Annual Underheated Period Overheated Period

Orientation
Collection [kWh/m2] [kWh/m2] [kWh/m2]

East 313.47 48.95 88.37

West 791.25 103.97 251.31

South 849.28 136.16 251.82

Table 2 - Radiation valued according orientation (Generated using Autodesk Ecotect)

25
Figure 10 - Radiation valued according orientation (South, east, west) (Generated using Autodesk Ecotect)

26
3.4.2.3 Thermal Mass

Thermal mass dampens and delays temperature swings to make it cool during the warm day and
warm during cool nights. It is most effective for places with large diurnal temperature changes.
Thermal Mass is effective for temperatures up to 95°F, with decreasing effectiveness in higher
humidity.

The goal for our project is to achieve a building that is less thermally insulated (low thermal mass),
but with a passive design considerations to take advantage of the winter sun well enough that it
warms up quickly and also would have less heating requirements (See Table 3). This way, we
proposed five smaller buildings with narrow sections and orientated with the longer façade towards
the south, in order to take as much advantage as possible of the solar radiation so it can penetrate
the internal spaces in the winter, but being careful to block it in summer with incorporated shading
devices and natural shading of trees. High performance glazing (Low-E) is proposed on north,
east and west orientations, while the south windows will be equipped with clear glass for maximum
passive solar gain, always taking care of not overpassing 70% of the wall surface to avoid
overheating.

27
Table 3 - R values for different construction elements according to the climate zone (Btu/ h ft2 F)

3.4.2.4 Wind

The wind in the climate zone 4 is not enough to energy generation, since the annual average is
approximately 3m/s. Anyway, the architectonic design is planned to take advantage from it in a
more passive way, allowing natural ventilation in summer, basically from June to September,
where the main direction of the wind comes from NNW; and avoiding it in winter months, mainly
November, December and January, where the wind comes from the SE (See. Fig. 11).

28
Figure 11 - Monthly wind speed and direction (Generated using Climate Consultant 5.4)

3.4.2.5 PV panel sizing

The photovoltaic (PV) array will be mainly used to feed the electricity required for the lighting of
the buildings. According to the Energy Consumption Guide from the Best Practice Programme, a
natural ventilated open-plan office requires approximately 22 kWh/m2 of treated floor area (TFA)
for lighting. Considering the five buildings of the project, we get a TFA of 23,000m2, so the total
electricity demand for lighting would be 506,000.44kWh/m2, or 506 MWh (See Table 4).

29
Table 4 - Electricity demand for lighting (Generated using Energy Consumption Guide)

The solar radiation [kWh/m2] varies all over the year (See Table 5), depending on the geographical
location. It needs to be taken into account for calculating the energy requirements of a PV system.
If we consider that one square meter of monocrystalline PV panels provide 120W (0.12kW),
500m2 will give us a total of 60kW of Peak Power. The monocrystalline energy yield is calculated
by multiplying the Peak Power by the Radiation and an efficiency factor of 40%. At the end, a total
of 44,366.64kWh can be provided with 500m2 tilted 37° south to take more advantage of the
radiation of the site (See Table 5).

30
Table 5 - Energy provided by 500m2 of monocrystalline PV panels

31
Table 6 - Average rediation for site (Lat 37.44° N, Lon 122.166° W) (Generated using NASA)

*PV panels should be tilted 37° towards South because the annual average of this inclination is
closer to the optimal (OPT)

3.4.2.6 Solar Diagrams

With the weather data provided by the software Climate Consultant 5.4, we got the monthly
average temperature per hour. Based on the comfort zone for the Climate Zone 4, and the hours
of usage of the buildings, we were able to determine the hours where we would require heating or
cooling in the internal spaces (See Table 7).

This analysis showed us that only July, August and September are the months that go above the
comfort zone, requiring some cooling strategies mostly from 12h to 4pm. As these values go barely
above the comfort zone, we can apply some passive strategies venture effect and shading.
The main areas to block from the solar radiation are facing towards the SW, so the recommended
shading devices would be vertical on the West (left) side of the windows and horizontal ones as
external louvers or balconies, playing with shapes, dimensions and even orientation of the
buildings.
32
Table 7 - Examples of heating/cooling hours per month (Generated using Climate Consultant)

In Figure 12 we can see two plausible façade orientations; the first one is a facade with South
exposure. It is provided with a vertical shading device on the left side, blocking the radiation from
the sunset. In its lower levels, we can see a horizontal shading device with a rectangular shape,
which is more effective for letting the solar radiation inside the building in colder months, but not
fully blocking it in September (where the weather conditions demand it). The upper levels have a
trapezoid shape, with a rotation towards the SE. In this case, the device is more effective for
blocking the radiation in hot months, but slightly blocking it in March, where the weather conditions
suggest letting it in. As we decided to focus on the heating of the building, it's better to apply the
rectangular shading devices.

The second example is a facade with South-East exposure. It is equipped with the same vertical
shading device and the same criteria for the horizontal ones. The shading devices in the lower
levels are more effective for letting the solar radiation inside the building in colder months, while
the upper levels are more effectively blocked from the solar radiation in hot months. This
orientation with the irregular shading devices will be recommended for spaces that don’t require
much heating such as working spaces where computers or other equipment would increase
internal temperatures.

33
Figure 12 - Shading options according to facade orientation and weather season (Generated using Autodesk Ecotect)

34
3.4.2.7 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Over the course of the predesign and design phases, we developed a Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) scorecard for the project (see Appendix B). This scorecard
approximates the credits the project would receive based on a list of requirements and optional
credits. This process was done for three different types of LEED project certification: Silver, Gold,
and Platinum. For each type of certification, a different level of commitment and work is required.
The primary tasks required for qualifying for the necessary credits are listed below.

Silver

To achieve LEED Silver certification, the following requirements must be satisfied:

• Through an integrative design process, identify sustainability goals and implement them in
the program, building forms, geometries, envelope treatments, and landscape design
• Provide long and short-term bicycle storage and at least one shower for every 150
occupants
• Do not exceed minimum local code requirements for parking capacity
• Designate 5% of parking for green vehicles and provide charging stations for electric
vehicles
• Create and implement an erosion and sedimentation control plan for all construction
activities
• Complete a site assessment for topography, hydrology, climate, vegetation, soils, human
use, and human health effects
• Restore portions of the site that have been previously developed
• Provide outdoor space greater than or equal to 30% of total site area
• Manage onsite runoff for the 95th percentile of regional rainfall events using green
infrastructure
• Reduce heat island effects through the combination of green roofs, covered parking,
vegetation for shading, and high-reflectance roofing materials
• Reduce light pollution by using luminaires with low vertical illuminance values
• Provide a landscape plan that does not require irrigation or reduces outdoor water
requirements by 30%
• Reduce indoor water requirements by 25%
• Install permanent water meters at the whole building level
• Install additional water meters for indoor plumbing fixtures and irrigation
• Prepare an operations and maintenance plan for future commissioning
• Conduct a whole-building energy simulation and improve energy efficiency by 6%
• Install energy meters at the whole building level, aggregate consumption data, and install
advanced energy meters for plug loads
• Offset building energy needs with renewable energy
• Do not use refrigerants or use low impact refrigerants
• Provide areas for collection and storage of recyclables for entire building
• Develop and implement a construction and demolition waste management plan
• Reuse the historic train depot building

35
 • Divert 75% of construction and demolition waste
• Meet ASHRAE 62.1-2010 for minimum indoor air quality performance
• Do not allow smoking on-site, or compartmentalize smoking areas
• Utilize enhanced IAQ strategies
• Reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from paint, furniture, flooring, and
adhesives
• Develop and implement an IAQ management plan for the construction and preoccupancy
phases of the building
• Comply with ASHRAE 55-2010 for minimum thermal comfort and provide individual
thermal comfort controls for at least 50% of occupied space
• Offer lighting controls to occupants or provide measurable lighting quality
• Provide sufficient illuminance levels for occupants
• Provide a direct line of sight to the outdoors for 75% of regularly occupied spaces
• Meet requirements for HVAC background noise, sound isolation, and sound reinforcement
• Have at least one LEED AP on the project team
• (regional priority credit)

Gold

To achieve LEED Gold certification, the following requirements must be satisfied, in addition or in
excess of those required for LEED Silver certification:
• Reduce indoor water consumption by 40%
• Implement enhanced commissioning activities
• Conduct a whole-building energy simulation and improve energy efficiency by 25%
• Design building and equipment for participation in demand response programs through
load shedding or shifting
• Engage in a contract to make at least 50% of the project’s energy from green power, or
purchase carbon offsets or renewable energy certificates
• Perform a building flush-out before occupancy
• Provide 55-75% daylit sDA
• Achieve significant performance using a strategy not addressed in LEED, achieve a pilot
credit, and/or achieve double the credit requirements or the next incremental percentage
threshold for a credit

Platinum

To achieve LEED Platinum certification, the following requirements must be satisfied, in addition
or in excess of those required for LEED Gold certification:
• Remediate a brownfield on the site
• Manage on-site runoff for the 98th percentile of regional rainfall events using green
infrastructure
• Reduce indoor and outdoor water consumption by 50%
• Conduct a one-time potable water analysis on cooling towers and evaporative condensers
• Implement enhanced monitoring-based commissioning and envelope commissioning

36
 • Improve energy efficiency by 50%
• Conduct a whole-building energy simulation and improve energy efficiency by 50%
• Engage in a contract to make 100% of the project’s energy from green power, or purchase
carbon offsets or renewable energy certificates
• Use at least 20 different products which with environmental product declarations
• Use at least 20 different products which have raw material source and extraction reporting
• Use at least 20 different products that use material ingredient reporting
• Provide enhanced IAQ strategies
• Perform IAQ testing before occupancy
• Offer lighting controls and measureable lighting quality to occupants
• Measure daylighting and comply with the highest requirements
• Attain additional innovation credits
• Attain multiple regional priority credits

3.5 Social Aspects

3.5.1 Background

Stanford has historically described itself as “a place apart”, intentionally separated from its
surroundings. Its identity is defined by its legacy as a research institution and one of America’s
best universities. Meanwhile, across El Camino, Palo Alto embraces its “techie” reputation by
inviting Silicon Valley elites like Facebook and Palantir along with fledgling startups like Waze and
SurveyMonkey to establish their companies downtown. The relationship between these
stakeholders has been strained at times, though Palo Alto’s recent approval of the Stanford
Hospital expansion was a gesture of good faith.

The deep history between Palo Alto and Stanford influences the identity of the research park.
Should it be a no-man’s land, neither Stanford nor Palo Alto, a new “place apart”? Or should it
instead create an “every-man’s land” where the identities of all of the stakeholders are represented
and amalgamated?

The project should connect the different wishes and interests of the diverse pool of stakeholders.
At the same time, it should be an interesting meeting, recreation, and relaxation space for the Palo
Alto community. Additionally, commuters, students, faculty, visiting scientists, and tourists also
may interact with the site. For instance, students may come to the park to gain practical research
experience, and local children may visit the site to play sports or learn about science. The social
goal for the project is to not only bring different interests together but also to build up human
networks and give the site a welcoming and secure atmosphere.

37
3.5.2 Research

3.5.2.1 Stakeholder Analysis

The project site that is known in Palo Alto as 27 University Avenue is land owned by Stanford and
used by the city of Palo Alto. At the moment there are several different buildings on the site. First
of all there is the historic Caltrain Station of Palo Alto, the bus station, the MacArthur Park
restaurant which was designed by Julia Morgan and one old Red Cross building. Besides these
few buildings and one parking lot the site is mostly undeveloped. Between the different buildings
there are several homeless people spending their days on the site.

The main users of the site at the moment are commuters which are using the site for
transportation, residents of Palo Alto which cross the site to visit the nearby shopping mall and a
few homeless people. Never the less there are a lot more stakeholders which are interested in the
possible future of this site. But the degree of interest and involvement is different.

Stanford University

Since Stanford owns this piece of land they are very interested in the development of the site.
They recognized the potential of this site and envisioned a research park which could be built
there. Furthermore there is the group of Stanford students which are using the site for
transportation as well and which see a possible workplace in the envisioned research park.
Besides the students there is also the group of people which are working at the University such
as professors, administration, service stuff etc. In general one can say that Stanford is very

38
interested in the development of this site for issues of reputation, progress and increasing
possibilities for students, professors and researchers.

Residents of Palo Alto

Secondly the residents of Palo Alto are very interested in this site. This group can be subdivided
into smaller groups with different degrees of interest as well. There are the families, children and
teenagers, elderly people, volunteers/community interest groups, commuting residents
and also neighbors to the site. It is obvious that commuting residents and neighbors to the site
have an especially high interest in the development of the site since they are affected by it every
day. Families, children and teenagers and elderly people are also using the site but they do not
really depend on it as it is the case with the commuters. Since this is the shortest way to the nearby
shopping center Palo Alto residents tend to cross the site to get there without spending much time
on the site. Especially at night people feel uncomfortable using the site due to lack of lighting and
safe pedestrian paths.

Researchers

Since it is the plan to create a 21st century research park on 27 University Av. another important
group of stakeholder is the group of future researcher which will me attracted by this park and its’
possibilities. It is more than possible that ambitious researchers from all over the country might
want to work in this research park of the future and therefore move to Palo Alto or its’ surrounding.
The proximity to Stanford University makes this location even more attractive.

Commuters to Palo Alto

Especially the group of commuters to Palo Alto is of great importance for the project since Palo
Alto doubles its population every day from about 70,000 up to about 140,000. They will be directly
affected by changes of the site. At the moment the commuters tend to spend as little time on the
site as necessary since there are few possibilities to wait comfortably for the bus or the train. In
general the site is not inviting people to stay and spend time on it.

City of Palo Alto, Government

Palo Alto is the birthplace of Silicon Valley and hosts a variety of start-up companies already. The
site is the land of Stanford but it is in the controlling zone of Palo Alto. The whole city is involved
because a change of the site means a change for the whole city. Stanford University and the City
live in a quiet competition with each other. The city is interested and concerned about the site
because of the potential for development both good and bad. One proposal to create an Arts and
Innovation Center on this site was already rejected.

Public transport services

The group of public transport services contains Caltrain, bus, cabs and the scheduled HSR (High
Speed Rail) which will run through Palo Alto until 2023. In the future the station will be used high

39
frequently by Caltrains and HRS. The trains transport a lot of people to Palo Alto and away from
there. Development on the site will have effects on these services. Possible changes are moving
the train underground, moving the bus station to another location on the site etc. In the long run
these public services will most presumably benefit from this development because of an increased
number of users.

Tourists

The first thing tourists see when arriving at Palo Alto is the old train station on the site at 27
University Av. which doesn’t convey a very good impression of the city. The cities’ reputation is
very good but the site does not reflect that. From this point of view there are changed necessary
so that tourists feel welcomed and immediately recognize that they have just arrives in the heart
of Silicon Valley.

Companies

Companies with one head office in or around Palo Alto are also affected by changes to the site of
27 University Av. It is obvious that they will benefit from the creation of a new research park in
Palo Alto because they might win new employees. This new research park could attract the
brightest minds of this country to move to Palo Alto.

People working on the site

The groups of stakeholders which were analyzed until now were most likely to benefit from
possible changes and development on the site. But there are also groups of people who fear these
changes and who will be suffering from them. If the old Caltrain station is not used anymore the
operator of the stations’ café will lose his job. If the research park will be built on the site the
MacArthur Park restaurant will be moved and the Red Cross building will most presumably be
destroyed.

Homeless people

Another group of people which will suffer from the creation of the research park is the group of
homeless people which are spending their days on the site, observing the environment. Since big
parts of the site are undeveloped until today the homeless people appropriated this place where
they are tolerated and where nobody disturbs them. When the site is covered with buildings in the
future the homeless people will lose this place. Therefore it would be necessary to find a solution
which satisfies all people involved.
We are aware that this analysis does not contain all possible stakeholders which could have an
interest in the development of 27 University Av. After having listed all of them we chose the most
important groups and focused our analysis on these groups to get a deeper understanding of their
wishes and fears regarding this site.

40
3.5.2.2 Local Amenities

Being confronted with the task to develop the concept for a 21st century research park which
integrates the interests of Palo Alto as well as those of Stanford it was necessary to analyze the
surrounding area in order to gain a profound idea of what is needed at especially this location. In
a first step our team collected general information of Palo Alto to get a feeling and an
understanding of this city and its special characteristics. Here some of this introductory
information.

• Population 2000: about 58.600

• Population 2010: about 64.4000
• Population 2012: 65,544
• Density: 2.500/sq miles, 960/km2
• Area: 25.787 sq miles; 66.787 km2
• Located in the northwest corner of Santa Clara County, California
• Named after the redwood tree “El Palo Alto” near the San Francisquito Creek
• Government: council-manager government
• Politics: strongly democratic
• Median age 2010: 41, 9 years old
• Median age 2000: 40 years old

41
 • Income: 4, 8 % of population lives under the poverty line
• Advanced Degrees: 79 % of population has at least a Bachelor’s degree
• Estimated median household income 2011: $119,124
• Estimated median household income 2000: $90,377
• Unemployment rate 2013: 3, 8% (California: 9,3%)

Top employers

1. Stanford University 10,223

2. Stanford University Medical Center/Hospital 5,813
3. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital 3,549
4. VA Palo Alto Health Care System 3,500
5. Hewlett-Packard 2,001
6. Palo Alto Medical Foundation 2,000
7. Space Systems/Loral 1,700
8. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1,500
9. Palo Alto Unified School District 1,318
10. City of Palo Alto 1,019

42
Furthermore our team analyzed which facilities for which group of stakeholders are already
existing in and around the concerning site in Palo Alto. After having collected general information
about Palo Alto we examined which facilities regarding different topics and different groups of
stakeholders are already offered. To facilitate and structure our research we created the following
categories:

• culture which we subdivided into libraries, theaters and cinemas.

• recreation/parks
• sports
• gastronomy especially cafes
• education which we subdivided into colleges, public high schools, private high schools,
public elementary schools, private elementary schools and kindergartens
• community centers
• health
• social services
• shopping centers
• churches
• facilities for children and teenagers
• facilities for senior citizens

43
The following list contains just those categories the team defined to be important in connection to
the given task to develop the concept for a future research park.

Culture

Libraries

• Main Library
• Children’s Library
• Downtown Branch Library
• Mitchell Park Library
• College Terrace Library

Theatres

• Cubberley Community Center Theatre

• Theatre Works Silicon Valley
• The Stanford Theatre
• Art Center

Cinemas

• Landmark Theatres Aquarius

• Cinearts Palo Alto Square

Recreation/Parks

• Baylands Nature Preserve

• Elizabeth F Gamble Garden
• Palo Alto Park Service: 162 acres of urban park lands
• Friends of the Palo Alto Parks
• Hoover Park
• El Palo Alto Park
• Palo Alto Parks Division
• Palo Alto Parks Maintenance
• Palo Alto Demonstration Garden
• Park Towers
• El Camino Park

44
Cafés

• Coupa Cafe
• Palo Alto Cafe
• Philiz Coffee
• The Café
• University Café
• California Café
• Jimmy V Sports Café
• Café Venetia
• Sprout Café
• Calafia Café
• Café Broiche
• Café Epi
• CoHo
• Café Pro Bono
• Mayfield Bakery and Café
• Joanie’s Café
• Printers Café
• Starbucks
• Bytes Café

Sports

• Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields

• many tennis courts
• Aquatics: Rinconada Pool, Bellehaven Pool, Greenmeadow Community Center Pool
• Municipal Golf Course

Children and Teenagers

• Children’s Theatre
• Junior Museum and Zoo
• Children’s Library
• Ventura Community Center
• East Palo Alto Skateboarding Center
• Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital

Senior Citizens

• Avenidas Senior Center:

o daytime care in MOUNTAIN VIEW
o Handyman Service (fixing things around the house)
o Information and Counseling
o Transportation

45
 o Health and Wellness Service
• Lytton Gardens

Community Centers

• Cubberley Community Center (became Homeless Shelter)

• Lucie Stern Community Center
• Mitchell Park Community Center (opening soon)
• Alma Community Room
• Lawn Bowling Green Clubhouse

Social Services

• InnVision Shelter
o Family Facilities
o Single Adult Facilities
o Multi-Serve Center
• Permanent Supportive Housing
• El Concilio – Shelter Network
• Ecumenical Hunger Program
• Palo Alto Opportunity Center, Community Working GroupChild
• Abuse Prevention Center
• Palo Alto Homeless Shelter
• East Palo Alto Homeless Shelter
• California Family Foundation
• American Red Cross
• Women’s Shelter
• Lord's Gym Community Center

Shopping Centers

• Charleston Shopping
• Palo Alto Square Shopping Center
• Stanford Shopping Center
• Town and Country Shopping Center

After our research about the existing facilities we were able to say which fields are already covered
and where there are still needs unmet. Regarding the proposal of the architect John Arrillaga who
wanted to build an Arts and Innovation District which included office towers as well as a theater
on the site we were able to examine that there is no need for another theater since there are
already a few in Palo Alto. Furthermore we realized that it is not necessary to plan another library.
There are a lot of kindergartens as well as many cafes. Never the less our team still considered
having another café on the site since the nearest cafes are a few minutes’ walk away. Commuters
which are using the site for transportation won’t have the time to walk to the next café to get

46
something to drink or to eat. That is why we thought about integrating a café/cafeteria in the
concept for our site.

3.6 Landscape analysis

3.6.1 Background

Since Palo Alto is named after an old redwood tree (the “El Palo Alto”) it is obvious that nature
and landscape have a long history in this city. To be able to create a suitable landscape
architectural concept for the site at 27 University Avenue it was very important to analyze the
existing landscape around this special place between Palo Alto and Stanford.

3.6.2 Research

Big scale

Regarding the development of the landscape design we began with a technical analysis working
on a big scale focusing on the territory from the bay to the foothills. We used the word «LAYERS»
to describe first that Palo Alto and Stanford developed a lot horizontally and currently and the
question of build on built arises.
We recognized that Palo Alto has not much appreciation for its landscape structures (creeks,
sloughs, landmarks, foothills) which are nevertheless absolute spatial qualities. The second point
we talked about with regard to our initial first key words was «TRUST».
Then we realized that there are some areas we qualified as «slabes» which are breaking up the
territory because we have difficulties to get through or to cross them. We were thinking about the
shopping mall parking, the airport, the business center, and our site. This third point is about
«RECIPROCITY».
About «DYNAMIC» we found out that the hierarchy of the road and rail network (El Camino, Alma
Street, Caltrain) is currently too strong and tend to break up the porosity for bikes and pedestrians.

Middle scale

The perimeter of our site was a little bit too small to hope develop the research park of the 21th
century and we voluntarily want to diffuse the park beyond the limits. We found it interesting to
reveal the surrounding resources that our site could catch as the Palo Alto school, Town and
country mall, Medical center, Stanford shopping center, The Stanford knowledge, the downtown
investors, and the San Francisquito Creek. For the mobility, the main axis constituted by the palm
drive and the University Avenue should be enhance to incite people come to our site. Furthermore,
currently it is not easy for Caltrain users to know where to go because of too much view’s obstacles
in front of the train exit.
The railway is also a huge longitudinal axis that currently is difficult to cross as a pedestrian.

Small scale

47
In a small scale, we used the term «SUCCESSION» to analyze the existing assets in the site and
around it. The architectural style of the train station, the perspective view of the railway, the Palo
Alto tree, the Stanford gate and its Palm Drive, the gentle topography in the arboretum shaped by
storm water, and some planted part of the site which offers a good quality of space. The porous
natural soil existing in most part of the site was also an interesting point to keep and to enhance
in relation with our porous park concept.

3.7 Geotechnical and earthquake analysis

3.7.1 Background

1906 Palo Alto was faced with the consequences of the terrible earthquake in San Francisco. 84
years later there was another earthquake which even caused the death of people in Palo Alto.
Because of the local proximity to the San Andreas Fault the area around Palo Alto is endangered
by earthquakes.

3.7.2 Research

The impact of earthquakes on future buildings are very important issues that have to be
considered. In context of possible impacts, the subsoil of the site needs to be analyzed. Therefore,
the U.S. Geological Survey provides maps showing the results of miscellaneous field studies that
were conducted in the past. This map displays the subsoil conditions of Palo Alto among those of
other parts of the bay area. 1
Figure 1 is an excerpt of this map. The site is located in the middle of the marked area. It is labeled
with Qhl, af and Qpaf which stand for natural levee deposits, artificial fill and alluvial fan and fluvial
deposits.

1 U.S. Geological Survey (2000), sheet 1

48
Figure 13 - Figure 12 - subsoil map1

All of these aren’t the best grounds to build on, even though the layers are relatively thick. The
following Table 8 shows an overview of thickness and loadability.

name thickness loadability

natural levee deposits (Qhl) unknown very bad
artificial fill (af) up to 100 ft moderate
alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf) > 165 ft bad

Table 8 - subsoil overview 2

The very bad loadability of the natural levee deposits, the fact that the soil layer guides ground
water and the unknown thickness complicate constructions in this area. To build on the other two
types of subsoil, extensive footings are recommended. In case of high building weights, it might
be necessary to use deep foundation. For structures with large footings it could be possibly build
without additional actions. Soil improvement by injecting binder material is another possibility to
make the soil more stressable.
Earthquake impacts
Using the provided geographic information system (GIS) data for possible earthquake scenarios 3,
possible impacts on the site in case of an earthquake were mapped. Figure 3 shows the areas
affected by liquefaction, which is the only conceivable impact besides ground shaking that might
happen. The USGS proposes this with a probability of 5 to 10 percent. 4

2 U.S. Geological Survey (2000), sheet 2

3 U.S. Geological Survey (2000), GIS data package
4 U.S. Geological Survey (2000), map for San Andreas fault

49
Figure 14 - areas of possible liquefaction3,4

To minimize the effects of such an incident, we recommend using waterproof concrete for the
foundations, basement areas and other underground structures. In addition to this, vibration
dampers could be used to decouple structures from the subgrade.
During the research one quite new seismic isolator called Ro-glider 5 took our special interest. The
Ro-glider provides seismic isolation combined with high damping performance and is effective for
structures with column weights of 1-100 tons. Combined with common High Damping Rubber
Bearings, which are suitable for structures with higher weight, Ro-gliders provide a very good
protection from earthquakes. They need to be placed either under the sole plate or between
walls/columns and slabs. 6 Figure 14 and Figure 15 depict the components.

5 The Ro-glider was developed by Robinson Seismic Limited.

6 Robinson Seismic Limited (2011)

50
Figure 15 - High Damping Rubber Bearing

Figure 16 - Ro-glider

51
3.8 Traffic noise analysis

3.8.1 Background

The project site of elop*6 is framed by the tracks of Caltrain on the one site and the El Camino
Real on the opposite site. Since there are plans for the High Speed Rail running through Palo Alto
until about 2023 traffic will even rise. For these reasons and because of our plans to build a
research park on 27 University Avenue there is the strong need to consider traffic noise issues.

3.8.2 Research

To know how much traffic noise is emitted by the surrounding roads ant the train tracks, certain
data have to be analyzed. Based on the traffic density data 7, speed limits of each road 8 and
ambient noise measurements 9 traffic noise at a distance of approximately three feet were
ascertained. For this purpose a figure taken from a report, which was published by the RWTÜV
Fahrzeug GmbH 10 (Figure 16) was used. The value for noise emitted by Caltrain trains was
published in a train noise report. 11

7 City of Palo Alto (1999)

8 City of Palo Alto (2013)
9 WS Atkins plc (2008), p. 3.7-9
10 a German Association for Technical Inspection, RWTÜV Fahrzeug GmbH (2005), p.27
11 Louis Berger Group Inc. (2013)

52
Figure 17 - maximum noise level as a function of vehicle speed

The maximum noise values for recreational areas 12 is set to 67 dB(A). This limit is relatively high
by comparison, because other countries have stricter noise limits for this type of area. 13 To create
an outstanding recreation area and an appropriate working environment for all researchers on the
site we decided to set the noise limit to 50 dB(A). With the formula which states the damping of
sound level as a function of distance 14 the minimum distances to comply this limit can be
calculated (Figure 18).

Figure 18 - damping of sound level as a function of distance14

Figure 19 shows a map, displaying the so called “noise buffer zones” shows the area in which the
noise is too high for good recreation and a valuable working environment. The area in which the

12 U.S. Department of Transportation (2006), p. 21

13 German standard DIN 18005 Teil I - Ausgabe Mai, 1987
14 Dipl.-Ing. Eberhard Sengpiel (2014)

53
noise is too high is bigger than expected. This is not because the noise of the passing cars is too
high (purple), but because the trains of Caltrain are too loud (orange).

Figure 19 - noise buffer zones in order to noise limits

Referring to the results of this analysis, a reason for putting the Caltrain tracks underground was
found. The noise emitted by the passing, stopping and leaving trains is too high to be compensated
by noise reduction provisions. To reduce the noise coming from the surrounding roads, the
landscape architectural concept and the building orientation will be adapted. If this is not sufficient
the building works could be adapted, too.

54
 Working process

4.1 Development and implementation of the metaphor

During the kick-off week in Stanford in October we were introduced to the method of design
thinking. This method follows the idea to choose a metaphor which should be implemented on the
project and on the concerned site. This metaphor is supposed to build a common basis for the
teams to create a shared understanding and vision for the project.

The first metaphor suggested by the coaches was an octopus. Inspired by this impulse team
Bedouin started to think and discuss about other possible metaphors for the site and the project.
At the beginning we discussed different kinds of symbiosis in wildlife between different animals for
example the crocodile, the rhino, the shark and the turtle. During this discussion we developed
different keywords which were repeated several times and which seemed to be of importance for
team Bedouin. These keywords were TRUST, HETEROTOPIA, RECIPROCITY, DYNAMIC,
CHANGE, COMFORT, SAFETY, SYMBIOSIS and LAYERS. During the following task team
Bedouin was supposed to choose the four most important words out of this collection and build
models which are representing the four words. The team chose the words LAYERS,
RECIPROCITY, DYNAMIC and LAYERS. The next step towards a shared metaphor was to
develop a concept out of our four keywords. The aim of this exercise was to have a clear view
what our project should be about and not just following four unrelated words. Out of this task a
discussion arose during which we tried to figure out what the most important aspects of our project
are.

During the past days we talked a lot about symbiosis and mutual success. Another idea that was
discussed was the phenomenon of ecological succession. It says that trees in a forest grow
stronger and bigger after a fire has destroyed parts of the forest. So after a negative happening
there is growth and something new is developing. We liked the idea of regeneration and growth
even after difficult times especially with the knowledge that Palo Alto was named after an old
redwood tree called “El Palo Alto”. So we tried to combine the idea of symbiosis and ecological
succession and came up with the concept of SYMBIOTIC SUCCESSION.

For the first presentation at the end of the week in Stanford each team was supposed to build a
first model. Therefore we tried to implement our idea of symbiotic succession into one model. After
having destroyed the first model because of too much components and confusing unnecessary
things we tried to keep the model as simple as possible to convey the real meaning of the model
and our concept. This task ended in team Bedouin’s first crisis because not everybody was happy
with the way the model was build and obviously there were different interpretations of this abstract
concept. Because of the necessity to finish the model and the first presentation discussions were
oppressed. On presentation day not every team member was happy with the model or even
understood the meaning of it completely.

55
After everyone has returned to their home universities the virtual cooperation started. Regarding
the common basis the different team members followed different directions without really noticing
this. While some tried to implement our four keywords from the kick-off week in the project, others
followed the idea of symbiotic succession and thought about how this concept could be realized.
Although the concept of symbiotic succession was developed out of the key words there was no
real connection between these two directions. Since we didn’t realize floating in different directions
there was no decision or even discussion which idea to follow. The following weeks before review
I were spent on collecting data and analyzing the situation so that the metaphor became
secondary. Every video conference there were new words introduced which even complicated the
situation. We spoke a lot about POROSITY, DENSITY, the image of a SPONGE, DIFFUSION and
ISOTROPHY so that the amount of keywords just increased without having a shared vision or
even understanding of those words. Furthermore the words were not implemented in the project
consequently because of a lack of common understanding. The reason for searching for more
suitable keywords could be the fact that team Bedouin did not have a real metaphor from the
beginning like some of the other teams. The concept of symbiotic succession was so abstract that
it was difficult to implement it as strong as it was possible for other teams which had very clear
and concrete metaphors. By introducing more keywords we tried to compensate the absence of a
clear metaphor.

After review I our team got the feedback of having too many different concepts and images which
leads to confusion. At this point of time the team realized the lack of a common shared basis and
that there are different understandings of the keywords. In retrospect one could argue that this
problem started at the end of the kick-off week in Stanford when our team had difficulties in
creating our first model due to different interpretations of the concept of symbiotic succession.

56
To go on with the project properly there was the need to have a metaphorical picture and not just
an abstract project spirit. Muriel voted for going back to our Stanford model and creating a
metaphor in connection to this model instead of just inventing a new metaphor. Her suggestion
was to concentrate of one component of the Stanford model: the piece of a palm tree. The new
metaphor could have been a palm tree with regard to the structure of a palm tree and the
agglomeration of cells of the stem of a palm tree.
A few members followed this idea and collected information about palm trees for a better
understanding of this possible metaphor. But obviously not everybody was convinced and wanted
to follow this metaphor. So there was again this problem of drifting into different directions without
making real decisions. Some worked on the development of the palm tree metaphor, others still
tried to implement our keywords into the project. This fact and the lack of a clear decision led to a
big confusion before review II and spread discontent regarding metaphors in our team. There was
the big wish to continue with the project and to become more specific and concrete. On the other
hand the missing common basis prevented us from moving forward.

During review II our metaphor problem was discussed intensively. The coaches tried to encourage
us and told us the metaphor is not a must but it could help a lot. There were different proposals.
Key introduced the idea of using the Stanford hill as a metaphor where the different team members
got to know each other better. Another advice was to just “love our metaphor” of symbiotic
succession and not just to see it as a burden since the concept is very strong.

After review II there was a heated discussion in our facebook group about how to proceed with
our metaphor problem. Most of our team members voted for forgetting about our metaphors and
just go on with the project because we already lost precious time discussing about metaphors and
there are a lot of things to do and just a short time left. Others feared that without a shared vision
we will not be able to develop a convincing concept.

After not speaking about metaphors for about one week Carina proposed to stay with the original
concept of symbiotic succession and try to implement it in the project as far as possible. Everybody
agreed that it is too late to switch to a completely different metaphor like the Stanford hill even if it
expresses our team spirit in a good way. There was a general agreement on this proposal and
one could say that finally “we made peace with our metaphor”. After concentrating on the program
and the architectural realization of the project for a little time, Morgane and Thibaut proposed a
masterplan which includes architecture and landscape architecture and which refers to symbiosis
by connecting Palo Alto and Stanford via different element on our site.

57
The connection to Stanford and the arboretum should be realized via the small forest next to El
Camino Real and the connection to Palo Alto is created by preparing two additional entrances to
our site which are represented here by the purple stripes.

Another idea for implementing the concept of symbiotic succession on the site was to establish a
big research workshop once a year. Similar to the idea of the interactive research museum,
researcher from all over the state get the possibility to show the results of their work. All people
who are interested could visit and participate in this workshop. We envision this workshop to
become a big event in Palo Alto and which connects the city to the university. This workshop
should be organized in cooperation by citizens, researchers, students and all other people who
want to participate. By organizing these workshops we want our Research Park to get famous and
to reach even more people and to awake their interest in science and research.

58
59
4.2 Conceptual development

This analysis focuses on the process of coming to one final concept with a concrete program and
our interpretation of a 21st century research park.
After having spent the week in Stanford in October to develop a common ground for our team and
to find a metaphor we want to implement in our project we started working on the concept of our
research park when we were all back at our home universities. During our first conference we
presented our visions of a 21st century research park we have prepared earlier. The different team
members presented different ideas. Thibaut envisioned to create gathering spaces on the site and
to include nature in our concept. Heinrich wanted the site to be used during day and nighttime. He
wanted to create a comfortable working climate. Gretchen’s vision included attracting new players,
including an educational element on the site, building courtyards as meeting places for the
different users and guaranteeing easy access to our site. Muriel expresses her wishes to create
flexible working spaces with the opportunity of recreation and retreat. Carina talked about her
vision to build a “research village” which includes all facilities that are needed. She had the idea
of combining working and living on the site. At the end of this first conference we concluded our
wishes for the site and collected important elements:

• creating a landmark for Palo Alto

• building an attraction point for different groups of possible users
• connection Palo Alto and Stanford
• including an educational element
• attaching to memories/traditions
• be open for different groups of users
• bringing life to site by not only planning working spaces
• guarantee safe circulation in and around the site

After this first conference the team agreed on building flexible spaces and creating spaces of
different qualities (meeting spaces vs recreational spaces, public spaces vs working spaces).
Questions that occurred during this meeting were which kind of research we want to realize on
the site and what are the needs of the future generation, what we want to offer to the surrounding.
During the following week we concentrated on collecting relevant data and analyzing different
issues. Therefore we made a stakeholder analysis, a list of existing amenities in and around Palo
Alto, an analysis regarding climate matters and traffic issues and a research about the history of
Palo Alto and Stanford. During this phase of collecting data the development of a concrete concept
and program faded into the background. Regarding a first architectural idea we decided to build
several small buildings which are spread over the site in order to meet the requirements of our
key words of dynamism and porosity.
After not having talked about a concrete concept for about one month, Morgane presented her
ideas regarding a program at the end of November before review II. Therefore she visualized her
thoughts in this collage:

60
In this collage she implemented the ideas that were expressed in our very first video conference
and added new ideas like implementing sport facilities and common kitchens for example. But
there was still this unanswered question what kind of research we want to realize on our site.
During the following meeting a few days later Carina presented her concrete thoughts regarding
a specific program for the site. She envisioned dividing the site into four different spaces for
different usage.

1. public indoor spaces with a waiting area, a cafeteria, restrooms, a lounge and an
interactive museum.
2. working spaces with open work space, offices, laboratories conference rooms and
communal kitchens.
3. public outdoor spaces with a park, terraces, benches, community gardens and sports
facilities.
4. transportation hub with a bus station, the Caltrain station and the HSR station in the
future.

The general idea behind this proposal is to offer research on two different dimensions on the site.
The first dimension is the original research where knowledge and results are gained. These
spaces where research is actually done should be organized like a huge co-working space. The
second dimension contains the idea that students, residents of Palo Alto, tourists, commuters,

61
children and teenagers can benefit from the research that is done on the site. In the interactive
research museum researchers show their work and their results, lead workshops and give classes
for interested people. This is the place where research could be experienced. Researchers are
giving their knowledge and their know-how and the visitors of the museum are spending their time
and showing interest which leads to mutual benefit. This mutual benefit is part of team Bedouin’s
project spirit of symbiotic succession. This symbiotical exchange leads to spread knowledge which
leads to growth and welfare in the Silicon Valley. Furthermore the idea contains the educational
element which was intended right from the beginning. By visiting this museum we want to awake
the children’s and teenager’s interest in science and research to guarantee that research in
continued by the following generations. Another reason for realizing this idea of two dimensional
research is the connection between Palo Alto and Stanford. We are providing meeting and
exchange points for different groups of stakeholders. The team agreed on pursuing this idea
concordantly. During the very same video conference Thibaut presented his idea of creating a
linear park at the place where there are the tracks of the Caltrain at the moment. But since we are
planning to move the Caltrain underground this space would be free for landscape architectural
use. This linear park should go beyond the borders of our site and build a green axis.
To become a little bit more precise regarding our program Heinrich expressed his idea of preparing
wish lists. Every team member was supposed to make such a wish list with the most important
elements for the different spaces on the site.

62
Heinrich collected all the ideas from the different wish lists and implemented them into one file.
The next step was to vote on the different elements that were proposed in these wish lists. Through
this voting process we finally came to one list which contained all the elements the team agreed
on.

Parallel to this process of voting the team talked about how to finance the research park. There
were different proposals for the different uses. Regarding the co-working space the team
discussed to rent special desks or offices in the co-working space to researcher. Another
possibility could be to create memberships which allow the members to use all parts of the co-
working space but without the right to used one reserved desk. Regarding the use of the interactive
museum different possibilities could be realized. There also was the idea of creating memberships
which enable members to visit the museum whenever they want. Two other possibilities are to set
a fee per entrance or to ask for donation from the visitors. Although there was no concrete decision
made, some Bedouins preferred the idea of asking for donations from visitors of the museum.

Parallel to the development of the program with the different spaces on our site the idea of
establishing a big research workshop evolved. These workshops are supposed to take place once
a year or every two years on our site. By creating these workshops we intend to make our research
park known all over the country and attract researchers from different parts of the world. We
envision letting people participate in organizing these workshops in order to respect their wishes
and visions and to enable them to implement their ideas. We want these workshops to become a
huge event in Palo Alto. After Thibaut has expressed this idea for the first time during one team
meeting everybody was convinced and the team started to work on concretizing this idea. With
regard to our team spirit of symbiotic succession one can say that this idea really fulfills the wish
for mutual success for both Stanford and Palo Alto. These workshops bear the possibility for
students, professors, researchers, tourists and residents of Palo Alto to meet and interact with
each other.

63
Since there was a shared vision and also concrete ideas regarding the program for our 21st century
research park at the beginning of December there was then the necessity to develop a suitable
architectural and landscape architectural concept. For more details regarding the architectural and
landscape architectural development see other parts of this reader.

4.3 Architectural development

There were two architects on this project, and the team found it hard to work with Joris. This was
not because we didn’t have the same ideas or we are not coming from the same school. If it had
just been that, we could have found a solution that integrated everyone’s ideas. That’s why many
of us wanted to do elop, to see the different ways people work; that’s the challenge of this project.
We have worked with other architects before, and it has previously worked out well even if we had
different visions. Arguments can be enriching and make the project evolve into something even
better.

For Team Bedouin, the issues arose with Joris due to his Internet connection and his busy
schedule. He always was studying for an exam or working on his other school work. That, or he
was traveling. For example, he was not present for the first review and he wasn’t able to help for
the second or the third because he had something else to do.

He produced work, but in short spurts separated by days or weeks without communication. He
would upload many references, pictures, and sketches, but would not join the meetings or would
have connectivity issues so he could not explain the intention of his work. Then, he would come
to a meeting, and get upset because his ideas had not been incorporated into the concept. A few
times, he could not calm down and threatened to leave the group. In the weeks leading up to the
final week at Stanford, he posted once on the Facebook group, asking where the 3D model was
located in the Dropbox; we had not begun working on it, and so he essentially dropped out of the
group. While at Stanford, we called him and messaged him via many online methods, but he never
responded.

The other architect mainly worked with Thibaut, the landscape architect. He studies in Geneva,
close to her, so it was easier for them to collaborate and communicate. While at Stanford, Heinrich
and Salvador stepped in to help generate the 3D models and renderings.

4.4 Landscape architectural development

Before the kick-off week

Our landscape architect Thibaut began with his landscape team at Hepia to analyze Frederick
Law Olmsted’s work, a famous landscape designer before the actual start of the elop*6 project. It
was necessary to prepare what they wanted to explain to the other disciplines so they needed to
remember themselves of the main principles of landscape to make it easier for the other disciplines
to understand them.

64
During the kick-off week

As all other team members Thibaut participated in the group discussions to find metaphors, to find
a team spirit and to develop a concept. He was always trying to find relations to landscape. For
instance, our team began to discuss about the term of «succession» with the Stanford legacy and
the development of the university and we linked that with the ecological succession, particularly
with the vegetation cycle and the different stories of vegetation.
The landscape team also took advantage being on the spot to make a landscape analysis of the
site and its context, trying to understand how the space was built, what doesn’t work and what the
spatial qualities that should be kept in mind are.

After the kick-off week

The third phase of his landscape work was to implement our strong ideas into landscape and
develop a landscape concept on the basis of this interpretation. For instance, to define our team
spirit «Symbiotic succession» we defined four words which are explaining it: trust, reciprocity,
dynamic, and layers. Regarding landscape, Thibaut used the term «trust» to talk about channeled
creeks in Palo Alto and the distrust by inhabitants because of tides. He used the term «dynamic»
to analyze the different existing flows (car, bus, pedestrian...). He proceeded the same way with
the next terms.
Then he developed a landscape concept in cooperation with the other disciplines and after our
meetings and elop reviews he had adapted his work until the final review.

4.5 Sustainability development

We formed a partnership early in the project after discussing our shared interest in sustainable
design and energy modeling. During the physical kickoff, our main goal was to introduce our team
to the concept of sustainability and how it applies to building design and construction. We also
worked together to advocate for the environment during predesign discussions.
After the physical kickoff, the first step for this “subgroup” was to gather information on the local
climate. Salvador was still traveling after returning to Europe, but we kept in touch by chatting
online about what tools to use and how to determine to which climate zone Palo Alto belongs.
After presenting this information at Review I, we began to envision our sustainability goals for the
project. To start off, we collected case studies of successful sustainable building projects and
prepared short presentations to show to the landscape/architecture subgroup (Joris, Morgane,
and Thibaut).

These subgroup meetings were an effective way to exchange technical information without getting
bogged down by unrelated discussions or tedious explanations. In this way, we were able to
condense our thoughts and present the entire team with a more refined idea at a later VC.
Unfortunately, sometimes the one team member we needed to attend the subgroup meeting (so
that they could hear our thoughts, offer their opinions, and explain their own work) would have
connectivity issues, or be unable to attend the VC.

65
For Review II, we cooperated with Morgane and Thibaut to inform the architectural and landscape
decisions. We did this by identifying the most common sustainable building elements used in the
Bay Area region of California, and making recommendations for building orientation, shape, and
location.

For Review III, we worked separately due to winter travels and Christmas holidays. Salvador
created spreadsheets to calculate the optimal angle and required area for the photovoltaic panel
system, and Gretchen created a spreadsheet to compare three scenarios that would result in
different levels of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. We both
continued to speak with the architectural subgroup about sustainable aspects of the masterplan.
The architectural subgroup’s communication issues precluded us from creating energy models,
because there was no 3D model to work with. This forced much of the energy simulations into the
last week, when everyone was back at Stanford.

66
 Team process

5.1 Decision making process

Analyzing the process of decision making in team Bedouin one has to state that our team really
avoided taking decisions at the beginning of the virtual cooperation. Everything was discussed but
at the end of the video conference necessary decisions were delayed to the next meeting. Of
course there were different opinions on several issues and subjects but the team refused to vote
for one or another possibility. One possible reason for this instance could be the fear to choose
the “wrong” alternative and the will to keep all possibilities open.
Another explanation could be the instance that sometimes special input from different experts of
their disciplines was not fully understood by all team members because they are not familiar with
specific topics from the different disciplines. So it is hard to take decisions when not understanding
the arguments for and against a special topic.
After recognizing this problem team Bedouin tried to change this behavior of not making decisions
and several ways of taking decisions were practiced. The way decisions were made depended on
the kind of topic that was concerned. One could differentiate between major and minor decisions.
Examples for major decisions were the actual program we wanted to realize on the site and in
connection to that the architectural concept. One minor decision was the question if the bus station
should be at grade or underground. In the following part I am going to explain the process of
decision making exemplarily for these three issues:

bus station

The first idea was to put the bus station, the Caltrain station and the coming HSR station
underground to create an underground transportation hub. This first agreement was based on
reasons of safety and easier and faster connections between bus, Caltrain and HSR. After
Morgane and Thibaut have begun to think about a concept for architecture and landscape
architecture for our site they presented reasons for changing this first agreement and putting the
bus station at grade. Their arguments were that it is just not necessary to put the station
underground since Palo Alto is not that huge and safety won’t be endangered by putting the station
at grade. They presented examples of at grade bus stations which are working out very well. The
envisioned to create a bus station were people who are waiting for the bus have a nice view over
the site. The distances between the underground train station and the at grade bus station won’t
be that long so that faster connection was not a real argument anymore. Joris was not fully
convinced by these arguments and repeated the advantages of creating an underground
transportation hub. To find a compromise the idea to sink the bus station a little bit was mentioned.
But this idea contradicts the wish of creating a bus station with a nice view over the site. So there
was a voting if the bus station should be put underground or at grade. The majority voted for a
bus station at grade because these arguments were more convincing. Everybody accepted this
decision and implemented it into his or her further work.

67
program

In our very first video conference the team members presented their visions of a 21st century
research park from the perspective of their disciplines. But these visions were very general and
there were no concrete ideas yet. Never the less we recognized that we already share similar
visions. The following components were mentioned several times: working spaces and
recreational spaces, public spaces and private spaces, flexible spaces, spaces for different users,
educational aspect.

After this first presentation of everybody’s vision we didn’t talk about the program for a long time
because we started to make profound analysis and collect necessary data to be able to decide
what is needed in Palo Alto and especially on this site.

Regarding the organization of the working space we talked about the concept of co-working
without deciding if we want to implement this concept in our project. After review I Morgane and
Carina presented their more concrete ideas regarding the program. It was suggested to
differentiate between four different spaces on the site:

1. public space indoors with a waiting area, a cafeteria and a so called interactive research
museum.

2. public space outdoors with seating accommodations, sport facilities, community gardens
etc.

3. working space, possibly organized like a co-working space.

4. transportation hub with the train station underground and the bus station at grade.

The innovative aspect in this proposal was that research is realized in two different dimensions.
There is the working space where research is actually done and there is the interactive museum
where research is shown and where research can be experienced. This idea refers to our concept
of symbiotic succession. Researchers show their results and share their knowledge and visitors
spend their time in the museum and gain knowledge. This concept includes the educational aspect
that we envisions right from the beginning of the project by involving children and teenagers and
try to awake their interest in science and research.

There was a general agreement on this proposal but no official vote for or against it. Subsequently
the team started to talk about how the homeless people that are spending their days on the site
at the moment could be integrated in our concept. Since there was no solution found the decision
was postponed. To become a little bit more precise which spaces are needed and how the different
spaces could be organized Heinrich proposed that everybody should make a wish list which
contains all the wishes and visions we had for the site. Afterwards Heinrich implemented all the
wishes of all Bedouins into one file and asked everybody to vote with “no”, “yes” and “maybe” for
each component. The former concept with the four different spaces was modifies so that there

68
were five different spaces after creating the wish list: 1. working space 2. interactive museum
3. public space 4. outdoor spaces 5. transportation hub.

Since the wish list was too long with too many different components there was the need to make
a need list out of the wish list. Therefore we defined responsibilities for the different spaces. The
task was to analyze the needed components of the different spaces, to make sketches and to
draw ground plans and present the results to the rest of the team. After this analysis we planned
to decide which components of the wish list are really needed and started to develop a concrete
69
architectural concept which meets the needs and requirements of our program. Even if there were
discussions about the architectural and landscape architectural design before having decided
about the program in detail Morgane, Joris and Thibaut were then able to develop a concrete
masterplan.

architectural concept

The first agreement regarding the architectural concept of our project was the decision to create
different smaller buildings which are spread over the site instead of planning one huge building for
all uses. The idea was to have several buildings with different functions. Since everybody agreed
on this idea we didn’t have to vote on this issue. This idea reflects the concept of porosity,
dynamism and symbiosis we developed throughout the time. During our data analysis and our
struggles finding the right metaphor we didn’t talk about architecture since there were other things
much more urgent to solve. Joris prepared several models and drawings which showed the
different possible ways to create access to our site. One idea was to put the El Camino Real
underground to enable pedestrians to easily visit our site. The first architectural model was built
by Morgane before review II. It showed different rectangular volumes spread over the site but
without having defined the purpose and the orientation of the different buildings.

After review II we focused on the development of a program and one architectural concept.
Therefore Morgane and Thibaut worked together on one integrated concept between architecture
and landscape architecture and envisioned to spread the different buildings all over the site and
to create different outdoor spaces between the buildings with different qualities. They worked with
simple building shapes and a topography which contains slopes to create an interaction between
architecture and landscape architecture. Their concept included an underground train station and
a bus station at grade.

70
Simultaneously Joris developed another very different architectural concept which contains more
complex building shapes. His buildings aren’t spread all over the site. They are mainly placed
around the underground transportation hub and are connected to each other.

So team Bedouin was faced with the problem of having to different architectural concepts and the
need to find a compromise between these two proposals. These two different proposals were the
result of two different visions of our architects Morgane and Joris. During the following video
conference Morgane and Thibaut presented their revised masterplan which envisioned the site to
become a connection point between Palo Alto and Stanford via architecture and landscape
architecture. They were planning to open the site to Palo Alto by adding two new entrances (see
picture below: purple stripes). On the other hand they wanted to have a connection to the
arboretum by planning a little forest next to the El Camino Real (see picture below). This concept
envisioned the realization of our project spirit of symbiotic succession because the site is
connected to the city and to the university and therefore creates a meeting point where people
could benefit from each other.

The next step to come to one final architectural concept was to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of the two different proposals. Therefore each team member was supposed to
share with the others what he or she likes the most about the two different proposals. The goal
was to combine the best elements of both models.

71
Joris’ model
• organic, dynamic shapes
• alternative market
• meeting points created by the buildings
• keeping the old train station
• too complicated
• difficulties to orient oneself one the site

Morgane’s and Thibaut’s model

• easy orientation
• implementation of project spirit of symbiotic succession
• forest our between El Camino Real and site safety, less noise
• buildings shapes are too simple
• too long distances between the buildings
• forest might block the sun

This was the conclusion of our last video conference before Christmas. We decided to make a
few days break to enable Morgane and Joris to develop ideas how to combine the strengths of
both proposals.

After our Christmas break we had two conferences where Thibault presented his final landscape
architectural masterplan which was developed in exchange with Morgane. Since Morgane and
Thibaut worked very closely together and met often to discuss things more easily their architectural
and landscape architectural concepts matched together very well. Joris wasn’t able to join some
of our meetings for different reasons and therefore his proposals weren’t implemented in the final

72
concept as strong as Morgane’s and Thibaut’s ideas. We experienced that it is very difficult for
two architects from different parts of the world to work together and to develop one shared vision
especially when there are other problems like a bad internet connection or other responsibilities
besides this elop project. All those reasons which we analyzed above led to this masterplan for
review III. The final decision was to create five buildings with different functions to be able to realize
all the different envisioned components of our concept. The decision about the amount of buildings
was mainly taken by Morgane and Thibaut but there was general agreement in the team as well
after they have presented this idea. The final masterplan contains one entrance building with a
huge auditorium and a waiting area which is open to the public, two research buildings with
maily smaller office buildings to be able to work in private, one building which contains co-
working to enable people to work closely together and to benefit from each other and one
museum building which houses the “Interactive Research Museum”.

During the last week of the project at the end of January the team worked together in Stanford
again to accomplish the project, to build the final model and to prepare the final presentation.
During this week the final masterplan was created

73
Of course there were much more decisions made in team Bedouin but the processes of these
three different examples were chosen to be analyzed more deeply because they seemed to be of
great importance for the team and the project.

74
5.2 Mood diagram

75
This diagram above shows how the mood in the team was during the different phases of the
project. It contains the kick-off week in Stanford, the weeks before review I, the weeks between
review I and II and the time before the third informal review at the beginning of January. The most
important points where there were big changes in the general mood in the team are marked and
shortly explained.

5.3 Sources of irritation

Regarding the team process team Bedouin went through during the last six month of this project
there were several sources of irritation which disturbed the cooperation in our team. The biggest
challenge was to get along which the difficulties of virtual cooperation. During the first kick-off
week in Stanford the communication in the team was very easy. Everybody was able to express
his or her thoughts and ideas directly. Problems and misunderstandings could we solved and
discussed immediately. But after the whole team has returned to their home universities
communication and cooperation became much more difficult. First of all there was the problem of
having bad internet connections several times. Therefore it was impossible for some team
members to join the team meeting regularly. This fact resulted in the next problem of a disrupted
flow of information. Although we protocolled each team meeting it was hard for people how missed
one meeting to catch up with all the ideas and discussions that took place during this meeting.
Furthermore it was very difficult to find agreements on when to meet with the whole team. After
having experienced that it does not work for our team to have one specific date a week to meet
we discussed the dates for the following meetings at the end of each video conference. Since this
turned out to be very difficult as well we started using doodle to schedule the meetings. The doodle
links were posted in our facebook group so that everybody could fill it out. Sometimes these doodle
links were missed or forgotten so that there was confusion about the next team meeting several
times.

Another source of irritation which appeared in the middle of our project was the local distance
between the two architects in our team, Morgane and Joris. Due to the fact that they live in different
countries it was very difficult for them to work together as closely as it would have been necessary.
This instance in connection with the difficulties of virtual cooperation resulted in having two
different architectural concepts in the middle of December. So the team tried to combine the best
elements of these two concepts. In retrospect one could say that the final concept benefitted from
the combination of those two different ideas even if Joris’ ideas couldn’t be implemented as strong
as Morgane’s because it was not possible for Joris to join several meetings.

So one can say the main sources of irritation were the challenges of virtual cooperation and the
difficulties regarding organizational issues. The combination of those two elements made it
sometimes very hard to develop our ideas and to benefit from the specific knowledge of each team
member. The platform that turned out to be very useful for communication was our facebook group
which tied our team together because there was constant communication and exchange of ideas
if it was not possible to find a date for a virtual meeting.

76
5.4 Virtual Cooperation

During the kick-off week we defined responsibilities for the virtual cooperation of the following
month. Muriel’s task was to write the protocols of each video conference. After Muriel has written
seven protocols Gretchen started to prepare google drive documents for each meeting. During
the meetings she took notes of what was said and which decision were made. Even though there
was no clear agreement there was an implicit change of responsibilities for the documentation of
the team meetings. By writing these google drive documents the old protocols became
unnecessary so that this task was cancelled silently.

Regarding the scheduling of our team meetings it was very difficult for us to find a regular date
where all members could participate. Although we defined Wednesday in the evening to be our
regular timeframe for weekly video conferences it turned out that this was not the best solution for
our team. After our first regular conference on Wednesday the 23th of October we decided to have
our next meeting on the following Monday due to other responsibilities of the group members.
After our third conference we decided to use doodle in the future to schedule our team meetings
to find the best solution for everybody. Setting up these doodle poll became a shared task by
Muriel and Heinrich. In the beginning this procedure worked very well but after a few weeks it
became more difficult to make all members fill out the doodle polls. The polls were posted in our
facebook group so that everybody should be able to see them and fill them out. But since we were
using our facebook group very frequently for communication the posts for the doodle polls were
missed very often and it became hard to reach all Bedouins. But because of the impossibility to
define a regular date this was the only opportunity left.

Since the scheduling via doodle polls turned out to be difficult as well, Muriel proposed to use
google calendar where all dates could be registered so that it was easier to keep the overview.
She set up the google calendar with the deadlines for the reviews and our scheduled dates for the
video conferences. Although this idea got a general consent in the team the calendar wasn’t used
at all after having been set up. The reason for this instance is that we already used many different
tools and adding one more really complicated our situation instead of facilitating it. Because of not
fulfilling its purpose this tool was not used. Not using this tool after the introduction of Muriel was
no explicit decision by our team. Similar to the change of responsibilities regarding the
documentation of the conferences this was an implicit, unexpressed process.

Another tool we used during our cooperation was the blog that was set up during our kick-off week
in Stanford. It was introduced to us as a tool for regular communication and for sharing our ideas,
thoughts and results during the virtual cooperation. It was supposed to be like a normal blog which
should be used by all members and which could be read by all teams. During the kick-off week
we made the arrangement that Gretchen is mainly responsible for this blog. Everybody could write
entries and safe it as a draft so that Gretchen is able to edit it and correct mistakes since she is
the only native English speaker in team Bedouin. Although this could be a very useful tool our
team didn’t really use it frequently and experienced it as a kind of additional burden instead of a
source of help and inspiration. There was no constant use of the blog as an exchange or

77
 WHEN? WHAT? PLATFORM TOOLS
kick-off week Defining responsibilities First blog post,
decisions: protocol
-using Scopia for VCs
-facebook group for constant
communication
-dropbox for sharing documents
Su 20th Oct. test vc Scopia protocol
We 23th Oct. 1. regular vc Scopia protocol, etherpad,
foundation facebook
group
Mo 28th Oct. 2. regular vc Scopia protocol
Mo 4th Nov. 3. regular vc; Andy & Rodrigo Scopia, protocol,
participating Skype Doodle to schedule
next vc
Sa 9th Nov. 4. regular vc Scopia, Prezi, google
Skype calendar, google drive
REVIEW I November 13th
Su 17th Nov. 5. regular vc, reflection review I; Scopia protocol, google drive
Andy participating
Mo 18th Nov. Test vc google hangouts Google Doodle to schedule
hangouts next vc
Su 22th Nov. Small informal meeting Google protocol, 2 more blog
hangouts posts, Doodle to
schedule next vc
We 25th Nov. 6. regular vc Google google drive, Doodle
hangouts to schedule next vc
Th 28th Nov. 7. regular vc Google THANKSGIVING
hangouts
Fr 29th Nov. Small meeting, Morgane, Andy, Google Doodle to schedule
Thibo hangouts rehersal review II
Mo 2nd Dec. Rehersal review II Google google drive, Doodle
hangouts to schedule next vc

REVIEW II December 4th

Su 8th Dec. 8. regular vc; Rodrigo participating Google google drive, Doodle
hangouts to schedule next vc
Tu 10th Dec. 9. regular vc, Andy participating Google google drive
hangouts
We 11th Dec. 10. regular vc; Rodrigo and John Google google drive
participating hangouts
communication platform. One possible reason for that is that most of our team members are not
familiar with blogging and for this reason are not very confident with using this tool. Another
78
 Th 12th Dec. 11. regular vc Google google drive, blog post
hangouts
Su 15th Dec. Small meeting, Morgane, Gretchen, Google google drive
Carina hangouts
th
Tu 17 Dec. 12. regular vc Google google drive
hangouts
Mo 30th Dec. 13. regular vc Google
hangouts
Sa 4th Jan. 14. regular vc Google
hangouts
th
Mo 6 Jan. Rehersal review III Google
hangouts
REVIEW III January 7th
explanation is the fact that the blog is open to public so that everything could be read by others.
The function that was supposed to be fulfilled by the blog was adopted by our facebook group.
There was no day where nothing was posted in our group except a few days around Christmas.
We discussed organizational issues as well as specific ideas or interesting references that were
found. Until the end of the year 2013 our team had just written four blog entries which mainly
summarized our process instead of sharing concrete ideas and using it as an exchange platform.

A few days after the foundation of our facebook group we added our team coaches Andy and
Rodrigo to this group so that they were able to follow our process. Since we discussed everything
on this platform our coaches were well informed about when we met, what we did and if there
were problems or issues to be discussed. We mainly didn’t invite them to our conferences because
they knew when we were meeting and could join us whenever they wanted or thought their advice
could be useful for the team. Normally they announced their participation for special meetings or
asked if their help is needed at the moment. During our first phase of virtual cooperation between
our week in Stanford and review I Andy and Rodrigo participated in one conference giving useful
advice. Between review I and review II Andy participated in two of our conferences, encouraged
us and tried to help with our metaphorical issues. After review II we reflected our problem regarding
the metaphor with Andy and talked about possible solutions. Because of Joris’ connectivity
problems and the general discontent in the team we invited our team coaches and John being
Gretchen’s local coach to join one of our next meetings which turned out to be very helpful. In
general one can say that we mainly worked on our own with our coaches watching our process
silently and just interrupting if necessary. But if we felt the need of special input and inspiration we
didn’t hesitate to ask for help.

After having had bad problems with Scopia our team decided to use google hangouts instead after
review I. Not all members were fully convinced of this idea because they were not familiar with it
and needed to set up a google plus account. But after having tested google hangouts in a short
testing session all members were convinced and it was decided to use this tool for the future.
Besides the abolition of the technical problems google hangouts even provides more features
which enormously facilitated our virtual cooperation since then and raised the mood in our team
after review I.

79
To summarize the organization of team Bedouin on the management level one can say that there
were many organizational issues at the beginning. Everybody had to get used to the different tool
that were used and was faced with problems and difficulties. If it was necessary tools were
changed or added due to their value for our team. In general all members participated in the
organization but Muriel, Heinrich and Gretchen were in charge of special organizational tasks.

Looking at the diagram above one recognizes that the frequency of our video conferences rises
throughout the weeks. At the beginning of the project we usually met once a week with the whole
team. Especially in December after review II we met very often. Once even four times a week
because there were problems to solve (see developing and implementing the metaphor) and still
much work to do. So it is obvious that the cooperation in our team was intensified throughout the
weeks.

80
5.5 Blog

81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
5.6 Individual Reflections

5.6.1 Muriel Braun

The special thing about the elop-process was for me the virtual collaboration and its development.
For my part I'd like to continue doing this kind of "Co-work" and think about how to improve the
collaboration aspects. Especially two aspects seemed to me very difficult: The first was the
decision-making of the group and the second was the coordination of different tasks. Sometimes
I was very confused about who was doing what until when.
At the same time I was surprised how close we got, even over huge distances. For me virtual
space does not hide feelings of people and normal group process phenomena took place like in
real space.
A challenge for me was the fact of bringing social ideas into this project. Especially the need for
visualizing ideas was difficult for me. Social scientists aren't used to express themselves in
pictures.

5.6.2 Thibaut Defois

There were several reasons why I wanted to participate in elop*6. First of all I wanted to discover
how other disciplines are working and how I would be able to implement my own disciplinary
background which is landscape. I was very excited to meet people from other countries and to
work together on the same project for a few months. Furthermore I hoped to improve my English
skill by participating in elop. The virtual cooperation via video conferencing was really a challenge
for our team but never the less I liked this way of working since it was a completely new experience
for me. Never having participated in a virtual project like this I really liked the energy that was
evoked by the team during the cooperation. I enjoyed the courage and the mood in the team even
after having experienced several breakdowns due to different problems.
During this project our team went through some difficulties. Due to a bad internet connection it
was sometimes hard to communicate properly and to work effectively. Furthermore there was the
problem of not understanding each other for several reasons such as language ect. It was difficult
to share ideas just with texts and without being able to exchange drawings. One of our main
problems was that we were sometimes too wordy. Therefore things were interpreted differently by
different team members. Moreover I was a little bit disappointed by the commitment and effort of
team member(s) in our team. Another problem for me was the combination of elop reviews and
reviews for my own university. For the reviews in my university I had to prepare things that weren’t
discussed in my team yet. So it was difficult to combine those tow expectations from my teachers
and from my team.
All in all participating in elop*6 was a very precious experience for me.

5.6.3 Salvador Espinosa

Participating in a project such as elop*6 was really inspiring to me. The fact that most of the work
was made “off-site” by videoconferences makes it really challenging to achieve a very cohesive
result. Even more, when we had to adjust our schedules so all the members of the team could be
present. I think this is one of the biggest challenges, because sometimes it is really difficult to

103
explain something you have in mind if you cannot physically show it to your other teammates, or
some things can be misinterpreted and lead to confusions and different results. Sometimes virtual
connections were not going on fluently and we had internal problems, or sometimes our personal
schedules wouldn’t allow all of us to participate in the meetings.
However, I really liked the way we made decisions, such as changing from the given software for
videoconferences (Scopia) to Google Hangouts, which resulted much better to work with. I liked
the fact that we were all forced to use these communication and sharing tools, because not all of
us were familiar with them, and some other team members were really skilled.
Another thing that was very useful for me was getting to know different software the other team
members used, and the vast amount of tools that we can use for an integrated transdisciplinar
work like this. I also think internal meetings with our home university group were also very useful,
because it made it easier to share information we all needed and were going to use, and to clarify
some issues that might have come up of our specific subject.
Nonetheless, I think sometimes the project was more focused on an architectural approach, giving
a lot of importance to things as metaphors, concepts and design, and leaving a side technical data
required to achieve the design. I was a little disappointed of hearing on the Review III, 10 days
before the final phase, that we had too much data on climate analysis and energy aspects.
Sometimes even coaches would have different opinions on this point, because some of them
encouraged us to seek more data, while others told us not to.
At the end, I think this is a great experience to know how to work with people in a more integrated
way, learning new things, new methodologies and new ways of thinking and solving problems. I
think that for further similar projects that we find in our professional lives, we definitely have more
experience and more chances to succeed.

5.6.4 Gretchen Heberling

Overall, I am glad I participated in elop. I am very satisfied with the work our team produced, and
the process of generating our solution for the site was integrative and challenging. I got along very
well with most of my teammates, and I believe we helped push each other to not only find ideas
that worked, but ones that connected to our team and concept’s identity.

I did feel like the elop philosophy sometimes limited our group from moving forward, especially for
those of us in technical disciplines (construction management, sustainable building design). At our
first review, we were criticized for having too much analysis and data, but for me, that is what do
during the initial stages of a project: gather information and make sense of it. For the second
review, we were forced to reconsider our metaphor, and spent an inordinate amount of time
discussing it.

5.6.5 Morgane Robert

I decided to join elop because I wanted more experience on team projects. Our team, for the most
part, worked well together, and I got to practice my English. It was unfortunate that the architects
were unable to have a successful cooperation, but our team was able to work around that.

104
5.6.6 Carina Schmidt

After having spent about half a year developing the concept of 21st century Research Park with
my team I have to admit that this was a very challenging but also interesting and exciting time. At
the beginning of the project we had a very intense phase of cooperation in Stanford which made
it even harder to continue working together after everybody had left Stanford. It is hard to find a
consent in a group of eight different people from different disciplinary backgrounds so one can
image how difficult it was to find solutions and make decisions with the whole team being spread
all over the world. Sometimes the virtual cooperation was very frustrating because we couldn’t
work as effectively as we wanted to. Having participated in a local version of elop in Cologne
before I had the direct comparison between the process of face to face cooperation and virtual
cooperation. Besides these technical issues we had to face big difficulties regarding our develop
metaphor. There were some points were I just felt lost and didn’t know how to proceed and what
to do next. I think one main problem in our team was the tendency to avoid taking decisions when
they would have been necessary. Sometimes I had the feeling that everybody is working on his
own and nobody knows or understands what the others are doing. Although we communicated
every day via our facebook group I had the feeling of sometimes not really knowing what others
are working on at the moment.
According to our working process the mood in our team varied from very euphoric after the bungee
egg success to very frustrated after our great communication breakdown after review II.
I experienced that the members of team Bedouin are not just from different disciplinary and cultural
backgrounds but that they are also very different regarding their personalities and their ways of
working. Although this made cooperation sometimes much harder I am convinced that the concept
and the masterplan finally benefitted from this diversity.
Before the start of elop*6 I expected the language to be a burden which will complicate the
cooperation in our team. But it turned out that using the English language was no problem in our
team at all.
All in all I am very grateful for the chance to participate in this transdisciplinary project. After having
worked very hard on this project I am proud to now see the results of this work and what our team
developed.

5.6.7 Heinrich Schmidt

Before having started with this project I had a lot of expectations regarding different topics. At first
I hoped to learn a lot about different disciplines and their way of working. I was looking forward to
improve my team working skills being confronted with a complicated task and people from other
cultural and disciplinary backgrounds. Furthermore I wanted to improve my English skills since
this an important element in today’s working environment.
In retrospect I have to admit that we had many problems in combining all the interests of the
different disciplines and team members because of the huge diversity in our team. I learned a lot
about the work of an architect since I was forced to assist for this work because of the absence of
Joris during the final week in Stanford.
My team went through different rough phases during this project but there were also times when
the mood in the team was very high. There were several ups and downs due to the progress of
the project.

105
I really appreciate the fact that I was able to improve my language skills throughout this project by
simple practicing it during the kick-off weeks and the video conferences.
All in all I am very glad that I got the chance to participate in elop*6 and therefore learned more
about the cooperation in transdisciplinary and multicultural teams.

Masterplan

6.1 Program

6.1.1 Space Allocation Plan

The following table shows the space allocation plan for the entrance building of our research park
which mainly houses an auditorium and a waiting area. This building was chosen to be considered
in detail. For the space allocation plan of the other four buildings see Apendixes C-F.

106
107
6.2 Connecting to our metaphor

6.2.1 Realization of team spirit

Developing our final concept we intentioned to implement our team spirit of symbiotic succession.
The following analysis reflects on how we did this.
The first part of our team spirit is about symbiosis and reciprocity. We wanted to concentrate on
how to realize symbiosis between Palo Alto and Stanford since our project site is just in between
these two spaces. We intentioned to create something both Palo Alto as well as Stanford can
benefit from. The main idea was to create meeting points and to provide space where
communication, cooperation and exchange can happen. Therefore we envisioned to create open
spaces which can be used by everybody who is interested.
At the moment the project site does not really attract people to spend time there. It is just used for
transportation. Our intention is to create a concept which transforms the site into a place where
people like to spend time because they are feeling comfortable. In order to create a comfortable
atmosphere on the site we are planning spaces with different functions und different qualities. All
possible needs of the users of this site should be covered and considered. Therefore we want to
have a mixture between open and private spaces, working and relaxing spaces, indoor and
outdoor spaces and a combination of buildings and nature.
By optimizing transportation issues like reconstructing the bus station, putting the Caltrain
underground or planning the underground High Speed Rail (HSR) both Palo Alto and Stanford will
benefit because they are all using the site to get somewhere.
The second part of our project spirit is about succession which implies progress, growth and
welfare. This goal is realized by bringing life and people to the site. This “no man’s land” should
be transformed into an “everyman’s land”. If the site becomes more attractive more people will
use it which leads to growth. By creating an innovative research park we want to attract
researchers and start-ups from all over the country to come to Palo Alto and to bring new ideas
and bright heads to the Silicon Valley. The idea of succession is related to the meaning of
dynamism, flow and activity which is realized by the interaction of architecture and landscape
architecture on the project site. The research buildings are spread over the site with parks,
gardens and squares in between them so that it invites people to explore the whole site and its
characteristics.

6.2.2 Research on two dimensions

Since the given task of elop*6 was to create the concept of a 21st century research park team
Bedouin thought about innovative ideas to realize this research park. There already is a research
park in Palo Alto which is connected to the Stanford University so we wanted to create something
new and different in connection to our team spirit of symbiotic succession. We decided not to limit
the research on our site to a specific field or topic to guarantee as much liberties as possible and
to have a huge variety. The idea was to provide workspaces which are organized like co-working
spaces and which can be used in a very flexible way. These co-working spaces contain open work
spaces, offices of different sizes, conference rooms, laboratories, retreat spaces and communal
kitchens. We want the researchers to appropriate the working spaces the way they want to. These
co-working spaces are space where research is actually done. To realize our team spirit which

108
contains the element of symbiosis we developed the idea of two dimensional researches. The first
dimension which was already explained contains the spaces where research is done in the co-
working spaces. The second dimension involves spaces where the research that is done in the
co-working spaces can be seen and experienced by the residents of Palo Alto, other researchers,
Stanford students and other interested people. Therefore we are creating an “Interactive Research
Museum” where people can see which kind of research is done in this park and which results the
researchers came up with. This concept guarantees the exchange of knowledge and enables the
residents of Palo Alto to participate and see what is going on in this research park. Researchers
are giving their knowledge and sharing their outcomes and the visitors are spending time in order
to expand their knowledge which results in mutual success for both the researcher and the visitors.
By doing this the residents of Palo Alto feel involved in this research park which creates trust and
confidence.
Furthermore we want to implement the intentioned educational element by establishing different
classes and workshops for children and teenagers to awaken their interest in scientific research.
In general one can conclude that both Palo Alto and Stanford will benefit from the development of
this research park because it bears the possibility for growth and reputation for Palo Alto and new
options for Stanford to participate in scientific research especially for the students who will be able
to gain experience.

6.2.3 Consideration of the different stakeholders

The analysis above already contains some explanations about how the different groups of
stakeholders will benefit from our concept of a 21st century research park. It is obvious that all
stakeholders will benefit from the restructuration of the transportation hub. Therefore we will
concentrate on the benefits of our innovative idea of the envisioned research on two dimensions.
To meet the wishes and requirements of the future researchers of the park we decided to provide
two areas which are organized differently. On the one hand we are planning to build two research
buildings with private offices of different sizes to guarantee privacy for those who wish to work on
their own. On the other hand we offer one research building with co-working spaces for those who
wish for inspiration and exchange. By implementing these two different working environments we
are meet the needs of future researchers. To preserve the health of the researchers we integrated
spaces for retreating and recovering. To enable researchers to share their ideas and results with
the public we developed the second dimension of research through the construction of the
research museum. But the researchers are not the only stakeholders to benefit from the research
museum. Public and especially the residents of Palo Alto are supposed to benefit from this
museum as well as it was explained before. One of our main wishes was to implement an
educational element which was realized by the museum as well.
The public will also benefit from the creation of the outdoor spaces because the site is getting
more attractive and represents the image of Palo Alto in a much more suitable way.
The third main group of stakeholders to benefit from our 21st century research park is the
University of Stanford. Students can gain experiences and possibly find a work place there after
their studies. Especially start-ups can get the change to establish their ideas just in the heart of
Silicon Valley.
As a conclusion one can say that there are three major groups who benefit from our concept which
are the future researchers, the residents of Palo Alto and the University of Stanford.

109
The following table summarizes the analysis above and explains our final concept with regard to
our team spirit of symbiotic succession and the stakeholders we considered. The first column
contains the different spaces of transportation, working space, public space indoors and public
space outdoors with the concrete organization of those spaces. There is a short explanation of
the different spaces in the next column. Furthermore there are further explanations how the
different spaces fulfil our team spirit of symbiotic succession and which stakeholders are
considered where.

110
111
 symbiotic succession
creating SAFETY and TRUST by reducing the danger of trains
running at grade, evoking DYNAMISM by creating easier
access for pedestrains and bikes, SYMBIOSIS: trains can run
faster, and more safety for users is guaranteed
FIRST DIMENSION OF SYMBIOSIS
user/reseacher fluctuation garantees DYNAMISM, PROGRESS
and SUCCESSION and prevents STAGNATION, leads to NEW
IDEAS, PROJECTS, INNOVATION, GROWTH
chance to take a break
rooms with different qualities
CREATING MEETING POINTS
meeting points for the different stakeholders: commuters,
researchers, residents, tourists, students etc.
SECOND DIMENSION OF SYMBIOSIS
creating a meeting point between the different stakeholders
on the site, giving the residents an insight into the research
that is done on the site (leads to TRUST), connecting the
different needs of the different stakeholders, offering
possibilities of interaction and exchange (leads to
INNOVATION, PROGRESS, RECIPROCITY)
CREATING MEETING POINTS
DYNAMISM via sports, creating TRUST by bringing people
together, let people benefit from each other (MUTUAL
SUCCESS), making the site a place which attracts people to
spend time there, creating a visual and sensible connection
between Palo Alto and Stanford (e.g. forest beneath El
Camino Real)
SYMBIOSIS/RECIPROCITY: researcher "give" knowledge,
visitors "give" interest and time; results in spread knowledge, see above
which might lead to PROGRESS, INNOVATION and GROWTH
stakeholder
stakeholder of the underground transportation hub
(Caltrain, HSR) are mainly commuters, residents and
tourists; the bus station will be mainly used by
residents, students, researchers and commuters, short
ways, good connections, simple orientation
working spaces will be used by researchers only;
offering them everything they need to develop their
ideas and their work, supporting start ups; communal
kitchens to create further meting points, let researchers
participate in arranging the co-working space
everybody who is interested!! researchers, commuters,
residents, tourists, students, children, teeangers etc.
mainly for researchers and residents, but open for
everybody who is interested in science and research;
special workshops for children and teenagers
(educational element)
gathering places for friends
jogger, bicyclists, walkers
people crossing the site
people waiting for the train/bus
people working in the community gardens (e.g.
homeless people)
people enjoying the wheather
people just passing time on the site
etc.
etc.
112
6.3 Special Events

As it was explained before the concept of our 21st century research park involved the idea of
research on two different dimensions which is realized by offering research space such as private
offices and open coworking space but also the interactive research museum. Additional to the
idea of letting people explore research in the research museum we want to establish a research
workshop on this site. This research workshop is supposed to take place every two years under a
different topic and with different groups of people participating. We want to engage residents of
Palo Alto, students and professors from Stanford, researchers from all over the world and all other
groups of people who are interested. We envision this workshop to become a huge event and to
even make our research park more famous. During these workshops researchers “open” their
offices, let people see what they are working on and share their knowledge. Different smaller
classes, experiments or lectures for groups of different ages are taking place all over the site of
the research park. 27 University Avenue is full of people how are interested in science. These
workshops enable visitors to build networks, expand their knowledge or just have fun experiencing
research.

6.4 Architectural Schemes

Outdoor

In our team discussions, we talked a lot about diffusion and porosity, so for us, it was clear, we
didn’t want one big building, but more some smaller buildings dispersed throughout the site. We
were inspired by the Children’s Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation by Sou Fujimoto.

113
We wanted to have many outdoor spaces with indoor spaces placed where they intersect. Also,
because our site is in California, we wanted to take advantage of the good weather and provide
outdoor spaces with a variety of functions.

Also, we wanted to think about human scale; how should we show this site to the people? So, we
focused on keeping the natural landscape wild, and created building like rocks emerging out the
earth, and the landscape growing up onto them. Our aim was to design buildings that look natural
and really integrated into the landscape. The buildings needed to be extensions of public spaces;
people can walk on it, sit down, lay in the sun, take a break, and escape from their hard day. They
should enter the site via the linear park, by bike or foot, and see the site and want to stop for a
moment.

To have that, we create sloped buildings, so for us, the form was more important at the roof than
on the ground. That is why we spent more time working more on it. To have a dynamic roof, we
created a triangular mesh membrane. In this way, we could play with the triangles with different
materials. Some are windows, to illuminate the core indoor spaces, some are photovoltaic panels,
and the others are bio-concrete. Bio-concrete is a new biologic concrete inspired by sea shells.
Bacteria will hang on the concrete and repair it if it cracks, with green moss growing on its surface.

114
For the façades, we choose an upper band of bio-concrete along the top of the building, like an
extension of the roof. And like that, the roof is like floating, because the lower band is high-
performance windows.

Exterior view of the office building:

115
Functions

There are five buildings on the site. The first, nearest the station, is the entrance building. This
one is the place where the press conferences, lectures, and meetings take place. It’s public and
there are some exhibition spaces. This space functions as the “face” of the research center, where
the public gets to see the researchers’ work.

The second building is the main office building. It has working spaces for businesses, startups,
and freelance workers. The place where all decisions are made and knowledge is exchanged
through coworking spaces.

The third is an interactive museum. It’s on the way to linear park, so people will walk or bike past
it and see it. The slope of the museum faces toward the linear park and visitors can climb up onto
it and people-watch, play, or relax. Inside the museum, we have a lobby and a place to wait with
groups or classes. Underground, there is an exposition space, with video space and panels or

116
sculptures that will show the research that they do in this research center. The educational part of
the museum is upstairs. It has interactive exhibits for children and tables with experiments related
to the research. This will be also a place where the workshop will take place one week every two
years (see section 6.3). The rooms are really flexible because they are separated by moveable
panels, so the spaces can be arranged for different users. There is also a cafeteria which opens
to the outside and can be expanded.

The fourth and fifth buildings are for research. These buildings have open spaces for collaboration
and relaxation, and laboratories and offices for private work.

Interior

example for circulation through the buildings:

The floor slabs cascade down, like terraces. Double height spaces connect every floor. There are
two circulation paths, one via the elevator near the restrooms, and the other via stairs that ascend
along the path of the slabs.

117
The floor plan for the research buildings are divided in three parts: one dense with co-working
spaces, one with the elevator and meeting rooms, and one nearest the double height areas with
recreation spaces (foosball tables, games, hammocks, and sofas).

Interior view of the entrance building:

To see all floor plans and schemes, please see Appendix E to J.

118
6.5 Landscape Design

First of all, our concept of the interactive museum and the symbiotic succession gave us the idea
to build an evolving research park in time as an ecosystem where people could interact with the
environment and let the space evolve. So the idea was not to fix all the spaces but to build a
skeleton and let free spaces between the different fixed spaces.

Before deciding what spaces to fix, we decided to let the different existing entities interact as the
natural random arboretum, the rectilinear downtown, the vast asphalt area of the shopping mall
center and the natural banks of San Francisquito Creek. To create these interactions we want to
have a gradation of atmospheres from the arboretum to downtown Palo Alto.

Thus, we have the heart of the arboretum constituted by meadows and a random vegetation, then
we intervene at the edge of the arboretum densifying it by plants, then we dilate the arboretum
fringe towards the park encompass El Camino Real, integrating it better in the landscape.
Furthermore we can imagine reducing the road wide thinking of the future decline of the car and
use the parkway concept to make it cross easier by the pedestrian. The idea of the parkway is to
create different lanes for the different mobility such as the car, pedestrian and bikes separated by
tree lines or a sequence of vegetation more dense such as a grove.

Then we pass in the heart that we called the exhibition park thinking exteriorize the interactive
museum using exterior spaces to share the research by the way of art. On this sequence we find
two cores of open places hang on by a system of stitches which catch the slow mobility from the
downtown. The idea is to concentrate the transversal flow intensity on these stitches to release
free spaces between them favoring contemplation and time of relaxation and games.

119
So we have laid out the train station place which catches the train station users, the students who
come from Stanford in the south, business people who come for a conference, inhabitants and
children who want to benefit from the water games on the ground.

A second place is laid out next to the museum and between the two places wide grassland is
growing. If we move towards the creek we can benefit from an open space dedicated to the
contemplation and for playing with the wide playground shaped near by the creek. T

At the edge of the exhibition we have the city fringe which the thickness begin to the railway
promenade to the façade encompass the new Alma Street. Contrary to the wide natural areas of
grasslands and to the random plantations of the arboretum, the lines of this city fringe are strict
and the gentle slopes are covered by a clean lawn, perfect to relax. The stitches are made up by
gardens and trees alignments.

About circulations, we have two main direction principles which are the two directions of flows in
relation with the grid. And we choose another direction to orientate our buildings; this is the
direction of immobility.
The main slow mobility circulations we want to highlight are the four transversal stitches which
connect downtown, the park, the shopping mall and the Palm Drive and also the longitudinal linear
park which is a good way to connect our park to the nearby municipalities.

Concerning the concept of designing a park as an ecosystem, we thought to integrate on a

constant evolution some short events to intensify the research as a huge public workshop which
could be scheduled regularly every two years. At this moment, all buildings are open, different
types of people meet and an intense research is scheduled during a week. At the end of the week,
the park is used as a huge museum where results of researches are exposed in the exterior.

120
121
122
123
6.6 Transit Center

6.7 Construction Planning

6.7.1 Timeline

The construction of the high speed rail in Palo Alto will presumably not start until spring 2018,
barring any unforeseen bureaucratic delays. Therefore it is not necessary for our project to build
the underground train station any earlier than 2018. We decided that the research buildings, the
office building and the entrance building should be completed around the completion of the high
speed rail. So, the construction of these buildings will start at the beginning of 2015 and finish in
the middle of 2019. Due to the fact that the new train station is the backbone of the new traffic
concept, the roads and the new bus station will be constructed after completion of the high speed
rail infrastructure. The renovation of the old train depot will also occur at this time. The interactive
museum will be built last, firstly because it is located above the high speed rail tracks, secondly
because some research must be completed before it can be exhibited in the museum.

Constructing all buildings at once is not possible, because during construction a specific amount
of space around the actual buildings is needed for construction logistics (equipment, materials,
and construction vehicles). As the research park consists of five buildings, which are close to each
other, the area which is designated to be the actual construction site is too small for simultaneous

124
construction. Therefore, at most, three buildings can be constructed concurrently. Additionally, the
site has to be prepared for construction. The restaurant “MacArthur Park” has to be moved to
another location and the existing Red Cross building must be demolished. The following figure
shows the timeline.
2017
II
I

[II] research buildings 2 & 3

IV
III
2016

[III] office building

II
I
IV
III
2015

(tree nursery, stormwater basin,

II

[III] re-design of the park area

I

paths)
site preperation

MacArthur Park
[I] dislocation of
demolition and
IV

[I,II,III]
III
2014

public project
presentation
II
I

modeling
construction special events
landscape

125
 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV

[IV] interval for HSR constructiion in PA

[I,IV] underground train station [I] interactive museum

[I] old station [I,VI] crossroads bus terminals and [V] circulation
[II] entrance building
(refurbishment) access zones zone

[II] external [I] external [I] external [I,II,V,VI]

[IV] linear park
works works works external works

aa
grand opening

1st market on the site 3rd workshop

1st workshop 2nd workshop
(after this every month)

St. Francisquito floods

stormwater basin gets filled

126
After examining these constraints, the construction schedule was developed. We assumed that
every building except the train station needs around two and a half years to be constructed. This
span includes design, public tender, construction, approval and occupancy. The actual
construction time is highlighted with a dashed line. All the intervals are well-spaced so that
complications can be compensated.

An important factor we considered was preventing interference with traffic around the site. As the
existing bus station will be demolished, we had to find another location for a temporary bus station.
The commuter parking lot among Alma Street is suitable as a temporary solution. The underpass
where University Avenue goes underneath the train tracks is scheduled to be demolished as well.
To make this possible, while trains and cars keep running, we developed a sequence of
construction processes which will be explained in section XXXXX.

The northeastern portion of the site which is currently a public park area now continues to be park
area in the future. The landscape construction for the park will start right at the beginning of the
project and finish in June 2015. The remaining landscape work will follow the order of the
construction on the site. At the end of the project, the area south of Alma Street and around the
new bus station will be landscaped.

6.7.2 Construction logistics

As previously mentioned, the construction of more than three buildings at once is complicated and
not feasible. Even if there are just three jobsites, the available space needs to be allocated to
specific uses, to facilitate seamless workflows. In order to do that, we generated seven
construction logistic plans which show the different types of areas and their locations. The
following figure shows the construction site planning for phase two (research buildings and
entrance building).

To see more, please see Appendix D

127
6.7.3 Cost Estimation

To have an idea of how much the whole project will cost, we made a cost estimation based on the
gross floor area. Using the specific values for the different types of buildings 15, we were able to
outline the budget. We did not include the underground train station and tracks, the roadwork and
the refurbishment of the old train station.

The costs per square foot for the five buildings are very different because the types of uses
determine special requirements for building systems and the core construction. In order to that the
total construction costs per square meter differ between 172 and 310 dollars.

On nearly 780,000 square feet, including the park area, external works will be needed. We
assumed costs of 10 dollars per square foot, due to the fact that we did not find specific values for
external work

After the collection of basic data we ascertained the cost for several cost groups and at the end
the total costs per building. To factor in the local cost level of Palo Alto we charged a premium of
12.50 percent due to the advices of RS Means 16. We did the same to the cost calculation of the
external works.

15 RS Means (2013), p. 546-553

16 RS Means (2013), p. 538

128
The five buildings and the external works will cost about 59 million dollars in sum. We assume that
the construction of the underground train station and the roadwork will cost about 6 million dollars.
The refurbishment of the old train station and the moving on “MacArthur Park” might cost about 1
million dollars, so that the whole project will cost around 66 million dollars.

129
 References

City of Palo Alto (1999), California 1999 - Major Street Traffic Flow Map 24 Hour Counts (ADT),
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/25902. (13.01.2014)

City of Palo Alto Performance Report 2012

City of Palo Alto (2013), Posted Speed Limits on Palo Alto Streets,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/7301 (13.01.2014)

Clare Cooper Marcus, Carolyn Francis (1998). People places. Design guidelines for urban open
places. John Wiley and son inc.

Deskmag Global Survey 2012 of Coworking

w.deskmag.com/en/what-coworking-spaces-coworkers-want-165 (20.01.2014)

Dipl.-Ing. Eberhard Sengpiel (2014), Damping of sound level vs. distance

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm (13.01.2014)

eosweb.larc.nasa.gov (20.01.2014)

Fahrzeug GmbH 2005, Ermittlung der Geräuschemission von Kfz im Straßenverkehr, S.27

Louis Berger Group Inc. (2013), Noise and Vibration Technical Report,
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/Capital_Program/Los+Gatos+Creek+Bridge/Revi
sed+Noise+$!26+Vibration+Report.pdf, 13.01.2014

Palo Alto climate zone 4

http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html (20.01.2014)

Robinson Seismic Limited (2011), a range of seismic protection technology to meet unique needs
http://www.robinsonseismic.com/our-products-base-isolators.html (13.01.2014)

U.S. Department of Transportation (2006), Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, p. 21
German standard DIN 18005 Teil I - Ausgabe Mai 1987

U.S. Geological Survey (2000), Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30´ x 60´
quadrangle, California, http://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2000/mf-2332/ (13.01.2014)

U.S. Geological Survey (2008), Liquefaction Hazard Maps for Three Earthquake Scenarios for the
Communities of San Jose, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, Northern Santa Clara County, California,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1270/ (13.01.2014)

130
WS Atkins plc (2008), Existing Ambient Noise Measurements (dBA),
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/20181, p. 3.7-9, 13.01.2014

131
 Appendixes

8.1 List of Appendixes

Appendix A - Cooling and heating demand per month ........................................................... 133

Appendix B - LEED V4 Scorecard.......................................................................................... 134
Appendix C - Space Allocation Plans of all buildings .............................................................. 138
Appendix D - construction site logistics .................................................................................. 142
Appendix E – circulation in the museum ................................................................................ 145
Appendix F – example for space organization ........................................................................ 146
Appendix G – underground levels of one research building and the museum ........................ 147
Appendix H - ground levels of one research building and the museum .................................. 148
Appendix I - first levels of one research building and the museum ......................................... 149
Appendix J - second levels of one research building and the museum .................................. 150

132
Appendix A - Cooling and heating demand per month

133
 Number Credit Description Points Notes Silver Gold Platinum

Identify sustainability goals, explore how to

reduce energy and water loads, discuss
IP102 Integrative process strategies, then implement them in the
program, building forms and geometries,
envelope treatments, and landscape design
Predesign discussions of sustainability goals,
design strategies for reducing energy and
1 1 1 1
water loads, green roof design, envelope
design, solar diagram…

Locate the project within the boundary of a

LT101 LEED for ND location up to 16 Not eligible
development certified under LEED ND
Locate the project on previously developed
LT102 Sensitive land protection land or does not meet criteria for sensitive 1 Most of our site's area is previously developed. 1 1 1
land
Locate the project on an infill location in a Our site is an infill location with a historic
LT103 High priority site historic district (1 pt) or a priority designation up to 2 building and part of the site is a possible 1 1 2
(1 pt) or brownfield remediation (2 pts) brownfield.
Appendix B - LEED V4 Scorecard

2-3 points: Density within 1/4-mile (sq feet Should be able to get 1-2 points for diverse
Surrounding density and
LT104 per acre of buildable land) , 1-2 points: up to 5 uses (google earth snapshots) + density 2 4 4
diverse uses
Diverse uses within 1/2 mile (8+ for 2 points) calculations

Locate the project within a 1/4-mile walking Our site meets minimum daily service
LT107 Access to quality transit distance of bus stops or 1/2-mile of bus up to 5 requirements of: Weekday trips (360), 5 5 5
rapid transit stops or light rail stations Weekend trips (216) for bus and rail combined
Long term and short term bike storage + one
LT108 Bicycle facilities Bike storage 1 shower for every 150 regular occupants 1 1 1
(researchers)
Do not exceed minimum local code Provide spaces for carpools for 5% of parking,
LT 110 Reduced parking footprint 1 1 1 1
requirements for parking capacity if we provide parking at all
Designate 5% of parking for green vehicles
LT 111 Green vehicles 1 Charging station on site 1 1 1
+ provide EV charging
REQ: Create and implement an erosion and
Construction activity Conform to 2012 US EPA Construction
SS101 sedimentation control plan for all
pollution prevention General Permit or local equivalent
construction activities
Complete site assessment for topography,
SS104 Site assessment hydrology, climate, vegetation, soils, human 1 1 1 1
use, and human health effects
Restore portions of the site that were
Site development - Our landscape master plan should provide
SS105 previously developed (2 points) or provide up to 2 2 2 2
protect/restore habitat sufficient on-site restoration
financial support for conservation (1 point)

134
 Provide outdoor space grater than or equal Our landscape master plan should provide
SS107 Open space 1 1 1 1
to 30% of total site area sufficient outdoor space
Manage onsite runoff for the 95th (2 points)
SS108 Rainwater management or 98th (3 points) percentile of regional up to 3 2 2 3
rainfall events using green infrastructure
Meet criterion (2 points) or put parking under Green roofs, nonroof measures, or high-
SS110 Heat island reduction up to 2 2 2 2
cover (1 point) reflectance roof
SS112 Light pollution reduction Illumination and glare calculations 1 1 1 1
Show that landscape doesn't require a
REQ: No irrigation required or reduced
Outdoor water use permanent irrigation system or reduce
WE101 irrigation. Optional: reduce water up to 2 1 1 2
reduction landscape's water requirements by at least 30-
requirement by 50% below baseline
50% from baseline
REQ: reduce water consumption by 20% Appliances must be Energy Star or equivalent
WE102 Indoor water use reduction from baseline. Optional: reduce water up to 6 and water reductions up to 50% will gain 1 4 6
requirement by up to 50% below baseline points. 25% (1 pt), 40% (4 pt), 50% (6 pt)
Compile data into monthly and annual
Building-level water
WE104 REQ: install permanent water meters summaries, and commit to sharing that data
metering
for 5 years
Conduct a one-time potable water analysis
WE110 Cooling tower water use on cooling towers and evaporative up to 2 0 0 2
condensers
Install permanent water meters for two or
more of: irrigation, indoor plumbing fixtures
WE112 Water metering 1 1 1 1
and fittings, domestic hot water, recalimed
water, or other process water
Fundamental REQ: Complete commissioning process
EA101 commissioning and activities for electrical, plumbing, and Prepare an operations and maintenance plan
verification renewable energy systems and assemblies
REQ: Whole-building energy simulation or
Minimum energy
ASHRAE 50% Advanced Energy Design Energy simulation
performance
Guide
REQ: Install building-level energy meters
Building-level energy that can be aggregated to provide data
EA106 This was in our design strategies plan.
metering representing building consumption. Commit
to sharing this data.
Fundamental refrigerant
EA108 REQ: No CFCs in HVAC systems
management
Enhanced commissioning (3 points) OR
Implement additional commissioning Enhanced and monitoring-based
EA110 Enhanced commissioning up to 6 0 3 6
activities commissioning (4 points) AND/OR envelope
commissioning (2 points)
Whole-building energy simulation (1-18
Optimize energy Improve energy effiency by 6% (8 pt), 25% (11
EA103 points) or prescriptive compliance (1-6 up to 18 8 11 14
performance pt), or 50% (18 pt)
points)
Advanced energy
EA118 Install advanced energy metering 1 1 1 1
metering
Design building and equipment for
EA121 Demand response participation in demand response programs up to 2 0 1 2
through load shedding or shifting

135
 Renewable energy Offset building energy needs with renewable Use up to 10% renewable energy for our
EA123 up to 3 3 3 3
production energy building
Enhanced refrigerant No refrigerants or low impact refrigerants (1
EA126 1 1 1 1
mgmt pt) OR calculation of refrigerant impact (1 pt)
Engage in a contract to make at least 50%
Green power and carbon (1 point) or 100% (2 points) of the project's
EA128 up to 2 0 1 2
offsets energy from green power, carbon offsets, or
renewable energy certificates (RECs)
Storage and collection of REQ: Provide areas for collection and
MR101
recyclables storage of recyclables for entire building
Construction and demo REQ: develop and implement a construction
MR103
waste mgmt planning and demolition waste management plan
Historic bldg reuse (5 pts), renovation of
Bldg life cycle impact
MR108 abandoned or blighted bldg (5 pts) or bldg up to 5 Reuse of station building 5 5 5
reduction
and material reuse (2-4 pts)
Use at least 20 different products with EPDs
Bldg product disclosure
MR112 (1 pt) AND/OR use products that comply up to 2 0 0 1
and optimization - EPDs
with multi-attribute optimization (1 pt)
Use at least 20 different products which
Bldg product disclosure
have raw material source and extraction
MR114 and optimization - raw up to 2 0 0 1
reporting (1 pt) AND/OR use products that
matls
meet responsible extraction criteria (1 pt)
Use at least 20 different products that use
Bldg product disclosure material ingredient reporting (1 pt) AND/OR
MR115 and optimization - matl use products that document their material up to 2 0 0 1
ingredients ingredient optimization or product supply
chain optimization (1 pt)
Divert 50% and three material streams (1 pt)
Construction and demo
MR123 OR divert 75% and four matl streams OR up to 2 2 2 2
waste mgmt
reduction of total waste matl (2 points)

136
 Minimum indoor air quality REQ: meet ASHRAE 62.1-2010 or CEN
EQ101
performance Standards and other LEED reqs

Environmental tobacco REQ: No smoking or compartmentalization

EQ104
smoke control of smoking areas
Enhanced indoor air
EQ110 Enhanced IAQ strategies (1-2 pts) up to 2 1 1 2
quality strategies
Reduce VOC emissions of paints, furniture, Thresholds for compliance; more points for
EQ112 Low-emitting materials up to 3 1 1 3
wood, flooring, adhesives, and sealants more categories with compliance
Develop and implement an IAQ mgmt plan
Construction indoor air
EQ113 for the construction and preoccupancy 1 1 1 1
quality management plan
phases of the building
EQ114 IAQ assessment Flush out (1 pt) OR air testing (2 pts) up to 2 0 1 2
Comply with AHRAE 55-21010 or ISO or Provide individual thermal confort controls for
EQ115 Thermal comfort 1 1 1 1
CEN standards at least 50% of the space
Offer lighting controls to occupants (1 pt)
EQ117 Interior lighting AND/OR provide measurable lighting quality up to 2 1 1 2
(1 pt)
55-75% daylit sDA (2-3 pt), 75-90%
EQ121 Daylight illuminance calcs (1-2 pt), or measurement up to 3 1 2 3
(2-3 pt)
Achieve a direct line of sight to the outdoors
EQ123 Quality Views via vision glazing for 75% of all regularly 1 1 1 1
occupied floor area
Meet requirements for HVAC background
EQ124 Acoustic performance noise, sound isolation, and sound 1 1 1 1
reinforcement
Achieve significant performance using a
strategy not addressed in LEED, achieve a
INc1 Innovation pilot credit, AND/OR achieve double the up to 5 0 1 2
credit requirements or the next incremental
percentage threshold
LEED AP Have at least one LEED AP 1 1 1 1
Regional Priority up to 4 1 1 4

137
Appendix C - Space Allocation Plans of all buildings

138
139
140
141
Appendix D - construction site logistics

142
143
144
Appendix E – circulation in the museum

145
Appendix F – example for space organization

146
Appendix G – underground levels of one research building and the museum

147
Appendix H - ground levels of one research building and the museum

148
Appendix I - first levels of one research building and the museum

149
Appendix J - second levels of one research building and the museum

150