d.school

institute of design @ stanford university

1

contents 04.

Overview

05.

Archeology of an Historic Structure

09.

Challenges and Solutions

11.

Challenge/Solution 1 - Strategic Guidance With Multiple Clients

17.

Challenge/Solution 2 - Collaboration & Flexibility

25.

Challenge/Solution 3 - Historic Rehabilitation

35.

Reecting Culture

39.

Images

50.

Who We Are

2

3

Overview “Institute of Design at

Statistics...

Mechanical Engineering that were to move into the historic Peterson

Location: 416 Escondido Mall Stanford Ca. 94305

The avant-garde, formally named

Stanford” is one of three academic bodies of the Department of Building on Stanford University’s Panama Mall pedestrian boulevard.

The trio, who had to date never occupied a space together, also included the Design Group and Center for Design Research. brought its own

Each

unique culture and perspective on the

creative design process to the project. The Department’s goal was to leverage the individual strengths of each group to spawn exciting, innovative designs and products and cultivate a new generation of ‘design-thinkers’. The Peterson Building would be the incubator that could foster such cross-pollination in a truly collaborative environment.

The leadership of the Institute of Design, which prefers the abbreviated

moniker “d.school”, was the primary proponent and supporter of a comprehensive, iterative design process for the interior development, led by MKThink. The final design houses faculty and PhD offices, design studios, robotics labs, meeting rooms, a theater, and exhibition space in a light-filled central atrium.

Building Area: 42,000 Square Feet Year Completed: March, 2010 Project Cost: $15 Million Architect: Cody Anderson Wasney (CAW) Interior Architect: MKThink Photo Credits: Achille Bigliardi Photography & Bernard Andre Photography

The

following pages detail the building’s unique history and its influence on the project, the project’s challenges, and our work to restore an historic

create a world-class, state-of-the-art facility for design and innovation. The d.school is the jewel of the project, and is often the envy of other schools and companies which

campus

treasure

and

frequently tour it, seeking the kind of flexible and collaborative innovation space the project excels at delivering.

4

Archeology of an Historic Structure The Thomas F. Peterson Engineering Laboratory/Building began in 1889 as a classic Beaux-Arts style “bar” structure (see images), replete with heavy rusticated sandstone walls, wood trusses, a clay-tile roof, and clerestory windows.

Compatible additions were completed during the subsequent

decades through the first half of the 20th century that gave the building its notable U-shaped courtyard. The original interiors were high-bay spaces with open floor plates. With the double height spaces and exposed trusses on the second floor, natural light made for pleasing engineering studios (see images). Then in 1949 and during the 1960’s, the building suffered several insensitive alterations including the infill of the courtyard that severely compromised the natural light, air, and original character of the building. The warm sandstone was concealed and floors turned into a warren of small window-less spaces. In 2007, MKThink was hired by the University with architectural firm Cody Anderson Wasney to rehabilitate the Peterson Building in preparation for its new trio of occupants.

5

North Wing: 1889 Designed by Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge

West Wing: 1907 Unknown Architect

The $15 million rehabilitation was much like an archeological dig that peeled back the layers of paint and plaster, and restored the building’s original architectural integrity and grandeur while also updating it to meet the requirements of current users and modern code. In 2011, the project received the prestigious California Preservation Foundation Award for its sensitive and clever contextual rehabilitation. The award recognized the project as successfully creating a state-of-the-art design and engineering facility, while recapturing the original highly-valued spatial and light qualities this historic structure once provided. While the building appears from the outside to remain a solid, understated, but handsome structure, the interiors reveal a light, refreshingly contemporary contrast that plays well with, and highlights, the historic features throughout.

South Wing: 1914 Designed by Bakewell & Brown

Courtyard InďŹ ll: 1949 Development of the building takes a turn for the worse

6

Historic Background & Location

Original interiors were constructed as high-bay industrial shop spaces with open oor plates, Circa 1889

Original Interior, Circa 1889

7

Overview of Stanford quad showing historic Peterson Building on Panama Mall

The building to the right is an image of the Peterson Building. It was taken after the third phase was completed

8

Challenges and Solutions:

Creativity Follows Context

9

The project supplied its share of notable challenges aside from the surgical seismic retroďŹ t and functional upgrades. A successful project would provide an environment that encouraged germination of big-idea thinking and complex problem-solving, and still allowed each group to maintain its area of study and unique culture.

Challenge 1: Strategic Guidance with Multiple Clients: understanding and supporting variable cultures under one roof Gain a complete and accurate understanding of the unique cultures, identities, and work styles of the three future occupants (d.school, Design Group, and Center for Design Research).

MKThink applied its custom

tailored Discovery & Assessment approach to get to the core values of each group.

Challenge 2: Collaboration & Flexibility: designing a series of spaces that fuel the creative process Effectively encourage cross-pollination and collaboration between the three distinctly different groups.

From a thorough assessment and

strategy effort, the team developed a working plan that was tested repeatedly by both designer and end user.

Challenge 3: Historic Rehabilitation: Value generation opportunities in the context of an historic structure.

Design within the context and limitations of an historic structure. We applied the combined expertise and guidance of the University architects and the design team and leveraged the special qualities the historic structure.

10

Challenge 1: What does it take to house three of StanfordUniversity’s premier design-thinking groups?

11

Strategic Guidance with Multiple Clients Given the unique cultures and identities of the building’s three future occupants, for the project to be successful,

a deep and

comprehensive understanding of their needs and work styles was imperative. And, from the start, it was mandated that each group’s identity and independence be maintained.

MKThink’s data driven approach often begins with a comprehensive Discovery & Assessment effort. For this project we began with

a

100-day

“Ethnographic

Study”

consisting

of

interviews,

videography, workshops, surveys, and fly-on-the-wall observation.

The

a full cultural immersion requiring listening skills, and was led by MKThink’s

study required

great

multi-disciplinary

Strategy

Team

of

analysts,

planners,

and

our

educational psychologist. The analysis from this study enabled the project team to develop functional space criteria, appropriate user adjacencies, and a robust spatial program that identified both group-specific space needs and a set of critical shared spaces that would promote the desired level of interaction and collaboration between the groups.

12

Diagrams

A series of interavtive “white board� workshops were held to fully understand the typical culture and practice to each of the three designthinking groups

13

Layout of program in relation to the Context

14

Relationship Between Each of The Three Design-Thinking Group

15

Distribution of Space Within The Building

16

Challenge 2:

Space can fuel the creative process

17

Collaboration & Flexibility leverage the strengths of each group and foster deep collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas.

The Department of Mechanical Engineering wanted to

“Creativity follows context,” says d.school Executive Director George Kembel. “If I want an organization to behave in a certain way, I need to design for that.”

A successful project would provide spaces that encouraged germination of big-idea thinking and complex problem-solving, but still allow each group to maintain its area of study and unique culture. D.school Fellow, Scott Whitthoft, stated that the building is a tool to change how students act.

“Space can fuel the creative process by encouraging — or

discouraging — specific behaviors.”

The building provides a variety of

opportunities that promote idea-generation and critical thinking.

From a thorough assessment and strategy effort, the team developed a working plan that was tested repeatedly in an

‘iterative design

process’ and prototyping together by designers and end

users. Flexible, re-configurable spaces were designed that encouraged user ownership. Communicating openings between floors, a variety of large- and intimately-scaled spaces, and a central interaction hub are the key spatial features facilitating human connection and interaction.

The

design offers welcome elements of surprise and unconventional use of rough and refined materials, lighting, and furniture.

18

Collaboration & Flexibility

Configurable “white board” walls are placed throughout the building to support collaboration and flexibility

19

Interaction Atrium Space

20

21

22

Flexibility

The remodeled courtyard creates a great, exible space that can be readily adapted to support a variety of events including exhibitions, carreer expos, lectures, and active uses. The clerestory above ďŹ lls the Commons with natural light.

23

24

Challenge 3:

The Space isn’t Precious But the building is

25

Rehabilitation

Re-Purposing an Historic Structure As an early structure on the Stanford campus, much care and technical attention was required to achieve a full modernization and seismic

upgrade without compromising the building’s historic status. Removal

of the 1949 infill of the courtyard was strategically determined to offer the greatest value generation in terms of use and function, while removal of a third floor mezzanine, also added hastily in the 1949 addition, re-exposed the lofty original timer roof

‘new’ courtyard, enclosed yet filled with light.

structure. A new clerestory was added to the allowing the space to be

Combined, these key moves by the design team returned the historic integrity to the building while also improving flow, function and daylight penetration to the interior spaces. The original exterior facades of the courtyard have been purposefully “uncovered” and now are exposed in the interior, revealing the original materials used for each of the building’s additions and adding interest to the layered tapestry of the space.

26

Rehabilitation

The 1949 inďŹ ll was completely removed and a clerestory roof was added. The original facade was also restored which is now exposed within the courtyard.

The photo shows the integration of a new structural system (IBeams) to the existing structure. Note, since the building was built in phases the structural system on each wing is completely different. The building itself was a physical time line for how structural systems and architecture evolved at Stanford.

27

MKTHINK Intervention

Step 1: Removal of courtyard infill & 3rd floor

MKTHINK Intervention

Step 2: Removal of interior partitions and finishes to restore open floor plates at second floor

MKTHINK Intervention

Step 3: Addition of clerestory at new courtyard roof to create light-filled interior court.

Sandstone facades are restored.

MKTHINK Intervention

Step 4: Glazed curtain wall inserted into new East facade

28

Transformation New courtyard entrance, 2010 A new glass facade was added to the courtyard inďŹ ll giving it a more welcoming feeling. Also a garage door was added allowing user to easily move large object in and out of the building.

Courtyard InďŹ ll Entrance, 1949

29

30

31

32

Archeology & Reuse

Restored & Re-exposed original courtyard facade, 2010 With the 1949 inďŹ ll, the original facade of the courtyard was hidden behind gypsum boards. With the 2010 restoration, the walls were restores and is now exposed within the updated courtyard.

33

Upper Level of Interaction Space. The wall to the right is the original facade which was restored and left exposed.

34

Reflecting Culture designed to reflect the unique cultural identities of the d.school, Design Group, and Center for Design Research, overlaid by a new cohesive aesthetic that unites them. This aesthetic is calculated The project was

and attentive to detail without being fussy, and accepts the ‘natural’ features of the century-old Peterson Building.

“The space isn’t precious,” says d.school founder David Kelley, who also started the design firm Ideo. “The whole culture of the place says ‘we’re looking for better ideas,’ not ‘keep your feet off the furniture.’ “Every element is meant to stir innovation…”

The new space is proudly modern yet timeless and understated. The contrast

of

19th

century

and

21st

century

architecture

is

well-choreographed, with smooth steel and cool concrete cast against the original warm, cleft sandstone and rough stucco walls.

Where new

openings in old walls have been cut, the solidity of layers of brick and mortar are left exposed like the walls of an archeological dig to remind occupants and visitors of the history this building has had.

The understated modern aesthetic of the interior allows the historic building features to be highlighted, and also provides a virtual blank canvas for each of the three groups to imprint their own aesthetic and identity. MKThink helped establish the framework upon which this could occur. Structural wood and steel members outfitted with ‘unistrut’ tracks, 35

interior glass garage doors, white folding walls, and adjustable power and data sources all serve as armatures for the user to customize as needed.

The Design Group settled on an organized and regimented approach to the look-n-feel of their spaces, with a bank of collaborative spaces cleverly nested within pairs of fixed-wall private offices. The d.school on the other hand, is most comfortable in the mode of eternal change, so its dedicated

spaces are infinitely flexible, with moveable walls, sliding

whiteboards, exposed seating and every conceivable piece of furniture on wheels, save for the restroom stalls. A visitor dropping in one week might not recognize the space the next, because of the remarkable ability of the

re-defined to suit the faculty and student needs with relative ease. Collaborative rooms or

space to be

independent nooks can pop up and disappear just about anywhere.

The most used and prized shared space in the building is the

reclaimed central courtyard converted into an interior atrium. This space is where one can see Peterson’s

history of changes over the century. The original cleft sandstone and the rough stucco walls of the 19th and early 20th centuries face each other.

Right on the space is a café and meeting rooms. A grand stair case and balcony allow people from various corners of the building to connect, linger, and share over a coffee. And, when an exhibit or party is in full gear, the stairs and balcony offer great seats and views of the action. This space is rightfully called the Interaction Zone, and being at the center of the

it has become the cross-roads for faculty and students to meet and share ideas. building,

36

Reflecting Culture

37

Flexible glass sectional doors open or close depending on particular space use needs.

38

Section Perspective

Section Perspective of updated building 2010

39

40

Re-Purposing New Classroom Space 2010

High-Bay Space with open Floor Plate, Circa 1889

41

42

43

Balcony of Interaction Space

44

Value Creation New collaborative studio and workshop. Roof trusses serve as tracks for moveable tackable wall 2010

Before rehabilitation, 2007

45

Upper Level Studio & Team Room

46

Transformation New collaborative studio & workshop space.

Walls can be conďŹ gured at any time to meet the space demands of the user 2010

Hallway Before, 2007

47

48

49

Who We Are At MKThink we materialize the nexus between people, organizations and their environments. Specifically, we conceive impactful, value-first environments that align each organization’s critical assets – people, programs, mission & message. We design these places and spaces to be highly responsive to a wide variety of essential organizational needs by leveraging spatial relationships and functional requirements to best optimize human and organizational performance. We actualize our solutions as cost effective, high-performance environments that have the ability to lift the human spirit while respecting the natural settings in which they are placed.

Employing key findings from MKThink’s Strategy and Innovation platforms, we scenario-test, visualize and assess spatial ideas to allow each organization to evaluate options as measured against mission-critical success factors. Through this process, decisions can be made based on quantitative data rather than purley on qualitative emotion, and the highest value solution can be transformed into brick-and-mortar actuality. We employ a broad range of creative and technical experts who apply their skills to deliver architectural solutions that are recognized by their creativity and valued by our clients.

50

Representative Client List Workplace

Borel Private Bank & Trust Company Catellus Dept of the Navy Office of Naval Research Dow Agrosciences El Dorado Ventures Emotive Group Genentech, Inc. General Motors Corporation Harding ESE Highland Capital Partners Jupiter Communications Lo Property Management Mozilla Corporation Panorama Capital Quadrus RWI Ventures San Francisco Giants Baseball Club Shasta Ventures Stanford Management Company Storm Ventures Sun Microsystems Teatro Zinzanni United Commercial Bank Venrock VMware Walgreens Wells Fargo

Healing

51

Children’s Hospital Oakland Forbes Norris Clinic Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital Magnet Men’s Health Clinic Stanford University Medical Center Thomas Jefferson University Hospital

Community

Anderson Art Collection Catellus Urban Development Corporation Citizens to Save San Francisco Waterfront City of Dublin Emeryville Center for Community Life Hawaii Natural Energy Institute Nature Conservancy of California Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo Port of San Francisco SF Neighborhood Theater Foundation Telegraph Hill Dwellers YMCA of San Francisco

Learning

City College of San Francisco Hawaii Department of Education Jacoby Creek Charter School District Marin Montessori School Menlo College Oak Hill School Oakland Unified School District Pinewood School San Francisco Art Institute Santa Clara University Santa Clara University School of Law Stanford Graduate School of Business Stanford Law School Stanford School of Education Stanford School of Engineering Stanford University Town School for Boys University of California, Berkeley UC Berkeley School of Law University of San Francisco Woodside Priory School