Stanford University's new Clark Center is the culmination of innovative solutions and reworked definitions, leading this facility to become a living, design experiment.
A warm, sandstone colored palette helps define the non-traditional exterior of the new Clark Center, illustrated in this view from the south wing looking toward the courtyard. (All photos: Robert Canfield Photography)
Harken back to the days of your alma mater and a distinct image of the campus grounds may arise. As you zoom in towards the buildings, odds are that some variation of a rectangular or square façade in a non-descript gray will pop up. While there is something to be said about tradition, project planners, architects, and designers of the newly opened James H. Clark Center, Stanford Univ., Calif., have challenged that staple, along with every other aspect of standard lab design, in creating a response to the modern 21st century academic research center. For these elements, it has garnered R&D Magazine's and the Scientific Equipment and Furniture Association's (SEFA), Garden City, N.Y., 2004 Laboratory of the Year Award.
Vital stats
Project: James H. Clark Center
Size: 22,760 m2 (9,534 m2 labs)
Budget: $146 million
Architect/Engineer: MBT Architecture, San Francisco, Calif. (lead), Foster & Partners, London, UK (design); Alfa Tech (principal consulting engineer) and Cupertino Electric (electrical engineer), both of San Jose, Calif.; Middlebrook & Louie, San Francisco, Calif. (structural engineer),
Completion Date: September 2003
A window into science The driving force behind the creation of the Clark Center is rooted in the ambitions of Stanford's Bio-X committee. The program seeks to support, organize, and facilitate multi-disciplinary research connected to biology and all other scientific fields, hence the "x" variable. "The Clark Center is intended to build new alliances in science by providing workspace that is flexible, inviting, and, by its very design, provocative," says Beth Kane, Director of Bio-X Operations.
Indeed, the three-winged, 22,760 m2 facility is characterized by its complete departure from the traditional modular laboratory planning paradigm with an obvious lack of interior walls along-side large, expansive windows. As a result, tenants and nearby pedestrians are afforded the opportunity to have open cross-views of the facility, effectively placing the laboratories on display. Natural light is allowed to readily stream in so that each of the schools it housesengineering (South wing), medical (West wing), and humanities (East wing)benefit from the exposure, while a vibrant, sandstone colored canopy and sweeping railing system help to define the exterior. "This laboratory building stood out from the rest by its rethinking of the laboratory module, but the fact that it was visual candy helped as well," says Andrew Dymek, member of this year's judging panel and partner at the architectural firm Newcomb & Boyd, Atlanta, Ga.
At the heart of the Center lies a pear-shaped courtyard which doubles as a student meeting ground and campus event venue, a further response to increased interactions. "The shape of the building is most provocative, converting a rectangle of land into an intriguing complex of buildings, with light penetrating to the courtyard," adds 2004 judge Joseph Sundeen, associate director of chemistry/core resources at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, N.J.
Full-height glass, open passageways, and a centrally located courtyard promote the Bio-X committee's vision of encouraging interaction and creating unprecedented levels of transparency.
Space-saving strategies Tackling the committee's founding principle of building new alliances, architects MBT Architecture, San Francisco, Calif., and Foster and Partners, London, UK, undertook a non-conventional approach towards the center's design and infrastructure. Their answer was rather than build an internal core with many divisions, the new building plan would literally be turned inside out. This ultimately placed enclosed lab and building support functions on the outside while maintaining large, open interconnecting interiors.
"The building design takes advantage of the mild weather and regional architectural environment by shifting the circulation from the interior to the exterior of the building," says Laura Clary, a member of the judging panel from Harley-Ellis, Southfield, Mich. "This completely transforms the wall along the perimeter of the lab from a container for air flow to a transparent wall extending the sense of openness and allowing for an abundance of natural light, views, and visibility."
Marked by the absence of walls, the Clark Center's open floor plan allows its residents to customize their workplace and challenges standards within conventional lab design.
Open and extreme interiors With most building and laboratory support systems relegated to the exterior, the next phase of the project focused on the interior. Built to house more than 25 areas of academic research ranging from biocomputation to regenerative medicine, labs and offices had to be conceived with an eye towards the requirements of each user, while maintaining adaptability. The solution employed was to develop generic lab plans consisting of a series of adaptable benches and utility access ports fed from above. By having a truly adaptable floor-plate, the building could take on not only the different types of research today, but changing labs of tomorrow.
MBT and Foster Partners enabled both the West and East wings to be readily converted into wet or dry space, accommodating the needs of the researchers stationed there. Mobile/reconfigurable casework, re-usable storage units, and notably absent walls characterize the inner lab areas providing flexibility and complete transparency. "The flexibility in this complex is just astounding, with large, open zones where labs, offices, and interactive spaces are all thrown together," says judge Dave Barista, Associate editor, Building Design & ConstructionMagazine .
"Lab benches are not on module lines, labs are large and open with curved walls and full height glass," says Richard Rietz, independent lab consultant and 2004 judge. "My question is whether the experiment is "over the top"will the users be given the means to make a mess. The answer is we don't know, it's an experiment!"
Playing into that very notion is the design of the principal investigator's (PI) offices. In a traditional academic setting, PIs are usually perched above lab floor activities. The decision made by the Bio-X committee and the architects was to go against that model and have PI offices located directly inside the lab. "This redefines the nature of the office to lab relationships," adds Clary. "It is no longer a question of adjacency, but this project was bold enough to place the office right in the middle of the lab environment with placement subject to the whim or preference of the individual researcher." While this may be initially received as somewhat of a mixed blessing by faculty and students, there may be little doubt that the increased visibility and interaction fostered by this design will ultimately support the quality of instruction and research.
A design element rarely seen in current lab design, principal investigator offices are housed directly inside the research labs, providing new levels of access and increased dialogue.
Protective environments Ensuring the safety of its residents and neighbors was paramount to the Clark Center's dedication in October 2003. Both the East and West wings of the complex are each supported by two 929 net m2 H-8 zones, separated by a one hour occupancy wall. Communal fume hoods are located in regularly spaced niches adjacent to the open labs, in the East and West wings. According to MBT, "each niche contains two 5' chemical fume hoods, hazardous storage cabinets, and a station for collecting laboratory waste." Identical safety stations, equipped with first-aid kits, shower, eyewash, and telephone, are repeatedly positioned next to building exits on each level, allowing for easy accessibility in the case of an emergency. Even more impressive may be the fact that developers took the added step of sealing lab floors with epoxy in an effort to minimize possible contamination affects.
Interaction and amenities It is worth noting that while the Clark Center is set in an academic setting, it is nonetheless competing against industrial and government facilities for highly qualified, talented personnel. All things being equal, the appeal of the building itself can be a major draw for selecting a work environment. These considerations are woven into Clark's multiple interaction hubs, including two computer equipped collaboratories, a fully operational imaging center, several open classrooms and lounge areas, and a third floor cafe. In addition, a 265-seat restaurant dubbed LINX, boasts long, rectangular tables, ideal for breaking down social barriers.
Amenities aside, what the Clark Center ultimately represents is a facility not only willing to invest in innovative ideas but where a community places innovation and renewed thinking as its very foundation. "Other research universities contemplating mixed discipline buildings will have to look at Stanford and ask themselves whether they have gone far enough to create a true interdisciplinary research environment or whether they will just house several departments in the same building," adds Rietz. "The Clark Center raises the bar for any new buildings that claim to truly be "trans" disciplinary." Time will be its true test.
