Symposium 2015

GLOBAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
END-OF-YEAR SYMPOSIUM
JUNE 1, 2015

International program developing a methodology
for sustainable urban development and planning.
Agenda
❖ Introduction to GUDP
❖ Stockton Presentation
❖ Juarez Presentation
❖ Roundtable Discussion
❖ Next steps for GUDP

Project Map
SU
SJSU
UACJ
UPR
LU
JUAREZ
STOCKTON

Team Members Stockton

Team Members Juarez

1. Interdisciplinary
2. Hands-on
3. Real-world
7
Higher Education in the 21st Century

8
1. AEC Global Teamwork Project

9

10

11
AEC Global Teamwork Project

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
3. Global Urban Development Program

29

30

Round One 2012

Round 2 + 3
❖ Real World City Partner
❖ Stockton: Michael Tubbs and RSSC
❖ Juarez: Local NGO’s
❖ Research and Design Phases
❖ Research: Diagnose the city
❖ Design: Propose solutions to problems
❖ Service-Learning Component
❖ Haas Center Principles of Ethical and
Effective Service

Methodology
❖ Multidimensional (geospatial)
❖ Multisector (natural/built environment, political/economic/social structures/actors)
❖ Multiphase (understand the past, envision the future)
❖ Multifunctional (survey, analysis, decisionmaking, monitoring)
Discover and understand the phenomena that affect cities using holistic lens
Diagnose the health of cities using performance indicators
Develop new phenomena to improve trajectory of cities per indicators

Funding

Derek Ouyang (Dual B.S. ‘13, M.S. ‘15)
Global Urban Development Program
- Project-based learning in global, interdisciplinary teams
- Real-world urban challenges with long-term impact
- 10/14 to 2/15: Revitalization of District 6, Stockton, CA
- 2/15 to 6/15: Revitalization of Juarez, Mexico
The SPIRE Grant will support:
- Travel expenses for students and organizers
- Materials for community engagement and service
- Tools for digital collaboration and research
Thank you from the whole GUDP team!

Learning Goals
❖ Online Teamwork
❖ Interdisciplinary Teamwork
❖ Systems Thinking
❖ Human-Centered Design
❖ Research Methodology

Feedback

Feedback
❖ Valuation and confidence in team-based skills dropped
by mid-point of project
❖ Valuation and confidence in analytical and design skills
increased by mid-point of project
❖ More feedback and structure wanted from students
❖ Project is very time-intensive
❖ Gathering final results from both projects

Stockton City
Hall, April 9

Final Presentation
April 9, 2015

11/14:
Draft
Research
Timeline
12/12:
Final
Research
4/17:
Final
Design
2/20:
Draft
Design
Research Design
All deliverables viewable at gudp.stanford.edu

○ Place: Land use and building
development.
○ Movement: Streets, traffic, and
transport.
○ Environment: Natural features and
natural disaster concerns.
○ Health and Safety: Civic services
(fire, police, etc), health care, and
food sources.
○ Youth and Education: Schools and
demographics of the area.
○ Housing: Homeownership,
foreclosures, and property value.
○ Economic Development: Industry
and opportunity.
Research Topics
Place

“What would you change about the community?”
Community

Projects
Industry
Revitalization
Environmental
Resiliency
Airport Way
Revitalization
CSU Stockton
Proposal

Industry Revitalization
Industry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way Revitalization

Food Processing - employment
• Food manufacturing accounts for 14% of all U.S. manufacturing
employees,
• The US food industry represents around 16.5 million jobs, and the
population spends around $1 trillion per year on food products.
• Average middle size factory in the industry employs 100-250 people.
• Various sub-industries require different investments in equipment and
fulfillment of regulations; the number of employees and the investment :
new jobs created ratio also vary
Industry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way RevitalizationIndustry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way Revitalization

Food Processing - why Stockton?
• Good location
• Proximity of inputs
• Connection to state roads
• Know how
• Affordable workforce

Tire recycling
Waste tires:
● export,
● reuse,
● ground rubber,
● ADC,
● civil engineering,
● landfill disposal,
● TDF.

Tire recycling
● Benefits to the city: tax revenue, decreased unemployment,
increased mean income
● Tire Incentive Program (grants up to 40 cents per pound)
● $1 million invested = 6 jobs
● Synergies with logistics
● Possible upgrade to tire
manufacturing

Logistics
• Fast-growing industry
• US logistics jobs growth by 2022 – 21.9%, 27,600 new jobs in total
• Large share of jobs with low requirements – opportunity for unskilled
workers
• $1 million investment creates 3.8 jobs
• Multiplier effect – 1 job in logistics creates 3.47 jobs in the economy
• Synergy possibilities with CSU

Logistics - why Stockton?
• Location – proximity to Bay Area, Greater Sacramento
• Lower operating costs than Bay Area
• Excellent transport links – highways, railways,
intermodal yards, deep-water port
• Suitable workforce
• Less expensive and plentiful land

Industry Growth Projections

Environmental effects of industries
Food processing:
● wastewater - recycling, reuse, effective water treatment
system
● solid waste - source reduction, animal feed, composting,
small recycling plants on site
● clean technologies - closed loop/zero emission systems
● FDA and EPA regulations

Waste tires:
● problems - “overcrowded” landfills, toxin release, pest issue
● solutions - production of scrap tires (shredding)
● usage - tire-derived fuel, civil engineering applications,
ground rubber applications

Logistics:
● occupying land due to transport and storage
● consuming fuel, transport and storage equipment
● producing loss and waste due to distribution processing
● consuming material and processing waste

Industries locations
The selection was made upon:
● existing land use
● location of existing nearby
industries
● location of existing industries in
Stockton with similar program
● public transport/ cycling
accessibility
● spatial needs of industry
● transportation requirements
● technology requirements
● agricultural preservation
limitations
● South Stockton Land Use
Strategy

● systematic development of
land use
● infill, revitalization and
mixed use
● compact shape
● coherent, heterogeneous
program
● can be developed in real
development plan
Land Use Strategy

CSU Study Programmes
● creation of study programmes as a direct connection to the
proposed industries
● chance for employment or working experience
● generation of jobs demanding a higher education (“Job
Multiplier Effect”)
● employment of young personnel from local student base

Energy Efficiency
Why energy efficiency?
Social
Equity
Environmen
t &
Resources
Economic
Benefits

Energy Efficiency
Goal: Improve home energy efficiency to
1. Help city meet Climate Action Plan goals
2. Better meet needs of South Stockton / low-
mid income residents: affordability, comfort
Model Context

Measure Typical difficulty Typical Payback
Seal small air leaks Average
homeowner
1-2 years
Insulate water
heater
Average
homeowner
1-2 years
Energy-saving
showerhead
Average
homeowner
1-3 years
Seal large air leaks Skilled homeowner 1-2 years
Seal ducts Skilled homeowner 1-2 years
Thermostat Skilled homeowner 1-2 years
Heating tune-up Expert technician 1-3 years
Source: https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Marketing/Files/SmartEnergyGuide.pdf

Cases:
●Old home (baseline)
●Only weatherstripping
●Only wall+roof insulation
●Only window improvement (film +
insulation)
●Weatherstripping + insulation + window
improvement
●New home
●Solar required to cover energy use of old
home, improved home, and new homeIndustry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way Revitalization

Windo
w Film
Air Leak
Sealing
(weather
strip +
caulk)
Attic +
WallInsul
ation

Windo
w Film
Air Leak
Sealing
(weather
strip +
caulk)
Attic +
Wall
Insulatio
n

Characteristics of baseline home
● Built in 1970’s/80’s before energy codes
● No wall/attic insulation
● Furnace/water heater has poor efficiency
● Very leaky (1 ACH)
● ~1000 square feet

Results

Results cont’d

Modeling Challenges and Shortcomings
● Limited data for comparison of lifecycle costs
● Wide range in cost estimates
● Replacement analysis not conducted
● No predictions made for changes in fuel or
electricity prices

Community Engagement
“These homes have been here for over 50 years, these homes have been here for a while. How often do people check out
these homes? ... Let’s do an evaluation of how homes are built, is there mold, are the heaters working? If people don’t
come out and do that, that’s a big issue”
“There’s this mentality of ‘Keep the lights off!’ ‘Don’t turn that on!’”
“‘Who’s gonna pay for it?’ This committee of environmentalists and
developers.. this has been one of the central things they’ve been fighting
over”

Trust
Disconnect
Outreach
Priorities

Stakeholder Analysis
Energy Efficiency
Stakeholders
Residents
Contractors
City
Utility
Non Profits
Financial
Institutions
Landlords
Homeowner
s
Renters

Existing incentives/assistance programs
Name Sponsor Benefits Requirements
San Joaquin
County
Weatherization
Program
San Joaquin
County
Human
Services
Agency
Free weatherizations - measures
include insulation, repairs,
improved appliances, etc.
A member of the household receives temporary
Aid for Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, SSI
or SSP, Veterans and Survivors Pension or if the
household income does not exceed a certain
amount
http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-
details/1844
Energy Savings
Assistance
Program
PG&E Repair or replacement of
refrigerators, furnaces or water
heaters, insulation/
weatherproofing, efficient light
bulbs, showerheads, etc
Home 5 years or older, meets CARE guidelines
http://goo.gl/8zvcu3
Valid through May 2015
Energy Upgrade
California - whole
house
PG&E Up to $2500 in rebates PG&E Customers with single family homes
Choose measures from a menu of options
Appliance rebates PG&E Depends on the appliance Purchase of Energy Star or approved appliance

Financing Options
Program type Pro Con
PACE (HERO, Figtree) ● Approved in Stockton
● No upfront cost- pay with additional property taxes
● Vetted contractors (3 in Stockton)
● Choice of payback (5/10/15/20 years)
● Higher property tax bills
● Must pay property tax (ineligible to
renters)
On-bill financing ● No upfront cost - pay using portion of energy savings
● Good for renters- financing can stay with the property
● Not currently available
● Risk for utility if bills are not paid
Loan (i.e. from the
Golden State Finance
Authority)
● Up to $50,000 financing, 6.5% interest for 15 yr loan
● Partner with approved contractor
http://www.chfloan.org/programs/energy/overview.shtml
● Only one Stockton based contractor
● No flexibility for loan length
Warehouse for Energy
Efficiency Loans (WHEEL)
● More scalable than other approaches due to investments
from large institutions
● Pool loans (investment grade capital)
Source: WSGR White Paper
● New and unfamiliar
● Public agency approval needed
Crowdfunding (i.e.
Village Power Finance,
Mosaic)
● Community building
● More flexible
● Requires strong community
partner- may or may not exist

Outreach strategy (ESA)

Outreach cont’d
Penetration - low
● Only 1.1% of eligible customers actually
enrolled
● 11% of spending on customer enrollment
● Moderate income program unavailable in the
county
Job training
● YTD - 48 people trained for ESA program
● Typically from the local area

Demonstration Home Cases
● Better Buildings Neighborhood Program:
o Chula Vista: 25% of tour participants in a demonstration home
signed up for energy assessment with a contractor
● Michigan: has 8 Energy Demonstration Centers
● San Diego Center: tours, kiosks, library, rainwater harvesting,
demo garden, food service demo kitchen

Chula Vista
Home
Phoenix: Meritage
Deconstructed Home
SDG&E Energy
Innovation
Center
SDG&E Energy
Innovation
Center
Detroit Ecoworks
Center

Conclusions
● Many efficiency projects with quick payback
● Improved outreach necessary
● Demonstration home / Energy Center Potential
o Outreach and education
o Access to subsidized materials for DIY
o Potential community space for local groups
o For residents ineligible for ESA: access to subsidized materials
for DIY projects and support may be useful
 Potential for building contractor-resident relationships

Conclusions
● Partnerships with other projects
o Integration w/ Airport Way temporary structures +
tool sharing, potential for more permanent
services
 Community garden, home improvement resource center
o CSU : potential to provide education in a growing
field
o Industry analysis of Stockton’s energy efficiency job
marketIndustry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way Revitalization

Way

Insights on Airport Way
What would you change about the community?”

Case Studies
People’s St.
Los Angeles
Federa
l Credit
Union
Prostoroz,
Ljubljana
Superkilen,
Copenhagen

Green Spaces

KaBOOM!
KaBOOM! provides:
- Funding assistance
- Experienced Project Manager
- Build Day training/assistance
The Community provides:
- 250 sf of land
- Partial funding
- Volunteers for Community
Build Day
- Everyday play!
- Maintenance
Promote play
Build a playground in a day

Temporary Program Concept
Street Art
Sports Areas
Outdoor Festivals

Temporary Structure Concept
Option 1: Home Depot Shed Option 2: Shipping Containers

Option 3: Build it Yourself
Adaptable Structure

Community Center

Master Plan Description
Phase 1: 10%
green areas:
● community gardens
● children’s playground
● public park
community area:
● temporary sports
court
● community events
● temporary structures
Phase 2: 50%
● community center
● police station
● grocery store
Phase 3: 100%
● commercial programs

10%
50% 100%

Proposed Phases
for Development
Phase 1
Phase 3
Phase 2

Having the physical campus in Stockton would visually reinforce the possibility of
going to college to people driving by it every day.
Seeing Stocktonians who went to well-
regarded schools and came back to
Stockton served as an inspiration to
students.
The CSU could offer cultural studies,
since Stockton is a diverse city and help
citizens learn more about the
background of others.

Economic benefits of a CSU
Economic Benefits Impact on
Regional Economy
Spending
Supports Regional
Jobs
Local Tax Revenue
CSU Stanislaus $169 million >2000 ~$8 million

L1: MLK / Highway 99
PROs: central location, close to residential areas, good accessibility, close to commercial
activities, incoherent current land use
CONs: less space for expansion, a few existing residents, no public transit route, safety may
be an issue, close to industrial lands

L1: MLK / Highway 99 Alternative

L4: North Stockton
PROs: a lot of space, close to residential areas,
empty lot is not suitable for low residential
housing, easily approachable by car, safe
neighborhood
CONs: nowhere near city center, almost no
commercial activities nearby, no transit
options (only car oriented)

Decision Matrix
Location 1:
MLK + H99
Location 2:
Airport Way
Location 3:
R4 + FW5
Location 4:
North Stockton
Location + - o o
Accessibility + - + +
Size o + + +
Public transport - + + +
Surrounding areas + - o o
Safety o o - +
Infrastructure + o - o
Place for expansion o + o +
Nearby residents + - o +
Close to services + o - o
Table of comparison of the three locations
(+ means good, o means neutral, - means bad // parameters that are higher are more important)

Breakdown of GSF of CSU Stanislaus
Instructional GSF 623,482 Instructional GSF / student 51.96 gsf / student
Library 123,319 Library / student 10.28 gsf / student
Housing / Dining 226,292 Housing / Dining / student 18.86 gsf / student
Administrative / Student Services 227,642 Administrative / student 18.97 gsf / student
Other Support 66,939 Other Support / Student 5.58 gsf / student
Parking spots 2908 Parking / student 24.23%
# of beds 656 Beds / students 5.47%

Calculated GSF of CSU Stockton
Instructional 519,568.33 gsf
Library 102,765.83 gsf
Housing / Dining 188,576.67 gsf
Administrative / Student Services 189,701.67 gsf
Other Support 55,782.50 gsf
Parking spots 2423
# of beds 546.7
Grand total 1,056,395 gsf

Table of construction costs
Construction Costs per GSF
for CSUs General
Contractor
Costs
Classroom $352 $182,888,052.2
Library $311 $31,960,173.13
Housing / Dining $274 $51,670,007.58
Administration $354 $67,154,391.18
Structure and surface per
parking space
$19,278 $46,710,594
Grand Total $380,383,218.1
Including Site Work Site Work assumed to be 3% of
building costs
$391,794,714.6

Table of example scheduling, based
off of Stanford LBRE
Sample Project Type Typical Project Duration Typical Construction
Duration
Large science / medical project ( ( (
|(>25k sf)
3-5 years 2-3 years
Large office / classroom project (
|(>25k sf)
3-4 years 1-2 years
Large housing project (>25k sf) 2-3 years 1-2 years

Mock Schedule

eQuest data for MLK / Highway 99
MLK / Highway 99
Classroom
Electricity Natural Gas
Yearly Energy
Usage
419,660 kWh 3302 therms
Bill $62,792 $1988
Total Bill $64,780MLK / Highway 99
Housing
Yearly Energy
Usage
181,200 kWh 0
Bill $26,929
Total Bill $26,929

eQuest data for MLK / Highway 99
MLK / Highway 99
Administrative
Yearly Energy Usage 520,850 kWh 2061.8 therms
Bill $86,276 $1305
Total Bill $87,581
MLK / Highway 99
Library
Yearly Energy Usage 1,200,800 kWh 10,179 therms
Bill $195,832 $5748
Total Bill $201,580Industry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way Revitalization

eQuest data for North Stockton
North Stockton
Housing
Yearly Energy Usage 364,060 kWh 0
Bill $53,533
Total Bill $53,533
North Stockton
Classroom
Yearly Energy Usage 817,310 kWh 6018.2 therms
Bill $121,398 $3483
Total Bill $124,881

eQuest data for North Stockton
North Stockton
Administration
Yearly Energy Usage 1,081,600 kWh 3341.2 therms
Bill $175,767 $2005
Total Bill $177,772
North Stockton
Library
Yearly Energy Usage 1,200,800 kWh 10,179 therms
Bill $195,832 $5748
Total Bill $201,580Industry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way Revitalization

Comparison of Yearly Energy Bills
Total Energy Bill (MLK / Highway
99)
Electricity Bill Natural Gas Bill
Housing $215,432 $0
Classroom $753,504 $23,856
Administrative $345,104 $5220
Library $195,832 $5748
Total $1,509,872 $34,824
Grand Total (per year) $1,544,696Industry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way Revitalization

Comparison of Yearly Energy Bills
Total Energy Bill (North
Stockton)
Electricity Bill Natural Gas
Bill
Housing $214,132 $0
Classroom $728,388 $20,898
Administrative $351,534 $4010
Library $195,832 $5748
Total $1,489,886 $30,656
Grand Total (per year) $1,520,542Industry Revitalization Environmental Resiliency Airport Way Revitalization

Architectural section (scheme)
● Instructional ● Administration

List of Programming / Majors
● Nursing
● Business Administration/Management
● Supply Chain Management/Operations Management
● Education/Liberal Studies/Teaching
● Psychology
● Sociology/Social Work
● Agricultural Studies/AgriBusiness
● Food Science
● Criminal Justice
● Computer Science

Budget / Financial Aid
● < than $90 million for first few years
● Close to 90% will qualify for financial aid
● Average full-time student will have financial aid package around $8,000
● Undergraduates will qualify for around $6,700 for need-based grants
● Need-based loan amount around $4,300
● Tuition for academic year around $5,472 for 6 or more units, $3,174
fewer than 6
● Credit Union along Airport Way can help with funding via loans

Public Relations
● Communicate and advocate with the local community
● Raise awareness on benefits of college education on what needs to be
done to apply to college
● Partner with local elementary/middle schools, high schools, and
community colleges
● Promote as commuter-based institution
● Inform high school counselors
● Promote college fairs

CSU Stockton

Conclusion
● Ideally, this analysis serves as a jumping point for a feasibility
study of a CSU in Stockton.
● Currently, there is an assembly bill on the topic of the
feasibility of a CSU, and this study will hopefully push CSU
Stockton as being chosen and built.
● Higher education attainment is crucial for achieving many of
the other goals mentioned.

Conclusion
● Partnership with other projects
o CSU Study Program to stimulate development of
industries.
o Promote green technologies and lifestyle with
Environmental Resiliency.
o Long term stimulation of development in
Stockton, including along Airport Way.

GLOBAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM: JUAREZ, MEXICO
PRESENTATION TO DR. CÉSAR EMILIANO HERNANDEZ OCHOA
MAY 29, 2015

International project developing a methodology
for sustainable development in Juarez.
Agenda
❖ Why and how GUDP got
started
❖ Creating the Juarez project
❖ Research and diagnosis
❖ Design phase: downtown
revitalization project,
neighborhood development
project
❖ Vision of Juarez and next
steps for GUDP

Project Map

Team Members

Timeline
2/20/15
Preliminary
Research, Trip to
Juarez
3/27/15
Final Research
Report
5/29/15
Presentation in
Mexico City
6/8/15
Final Design
Report
1/19/15
Project Kickoff

Trip to Juarez

Current Projects
Pros
•Comprehensive over four important sectors
•Strong set of stakeholders
•Much-needed attention from federal
government
Cons
•Even more federal support is needed
•More strategic community participation
•No discussion of housing
•No discussion of environmental risk
•No small-scale experimental approach

Pros
•Comprehensive over four important sectors
•Strong set of stakeholders
•Much-needed attention from federal
government
Cons
•Even more federal support is needed
•More strategic community participation
•No discussion of housing
•No discussion of environmental risk
•No small-scale experimental approach
Current Projects

Indicators
Urban Planning Environmental
Risks
Economic
Development
Quality of Life
• Mobility
• Urban infrastructure
• Floods
• Water supply
• Green spaces
• Job opportunities • Social welfare
• Safety
• NGO’s

Geospatial Research
Safety Environmental
Risks
Quality of Life Unemployment

Methodology
Identified critical
areas

A B C D (DOWNTOWN)
Analysis factors:
1. Services / Equipment
2. Infrastructure
3. Local perception
Methodology
Critical areas

NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Methodology for a neighborhood development on
border cities.
Background
Subzones
6B
1. INFRASTRUCTURE
2. EQUIPMENT:
• SCHOOLS
• ECONOMY CENTERS
• HEALTH SECTOR
• PUBLIC BUILDINGS

border cities.
Background
Polygons
7B

border cities.
Background
Master Plan, Area B
CULTURAL CENTER
ROAD AXES OF INTEGRATION
INTEGRAL DESIGN AXES
8B

border cities.
Background
Master Plan, Area A/C
8A/C

¿Centro Historico?
vs
Background
Methodology for downtown revitalization in
Juarez.
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION

Historic Plan
Juarez.
Current proposal can be improved

TURN HISTORIC
CENTER INTO AN
EXPERIMENTAL
ZONE FOR
REVITALIZATION, A
LEARNING TOOL FOR THE
WHOLE CITY.
FOCUS ON DENSIFICATION,
DIVERSIFICATION, CIVIC EDUCATION,
AND RESILIENCE
GREATER BUDGET, GREATER IMPACT
Vision
Juarez.

STRATEGIC
SECTORS
FIELDS KEY PROJECTS
1. MIXED USE
BLOCK
2. STREET
RENOVATION
3. PARK
4. COMMUNITY
CENTER
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
URBAN MOBILITY
& PUBLIC SPACE
CIVIC EDUCATION
& ENGAGEMENT
SOCIAL
POLITICAL
ECONOMIC
ACTION PLANS
P1: OPTIMIZE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT.
P2: IMPROVE THE PRESERVATION & UPKEEP OF REAL ASSETS.
P3: IMPROVE STORM AND FLOODWATER MANAGEMENT OF
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE.
P4: INCENTIVIZE MIGRATION TO URBAN CENTER.
P5: PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY BETWEENCITIZENS AND
GOVERNMENT.
P6: ENCOURAGE CIVIC PARTICIPATION.
Horizontal plans
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
RESILIENCY
HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY
SERVICES
P7: IMPROVE MOBILITY TO/FROM AND WITHIN CITY CENTER.
P8: PROMOTE DIVERSIFICATION OF BUSINESSES.
P9: PROMOTE URBAN IDENTITYAND PLACE MAKING.
P10: PROVIDE BETTER PUBLIC SERVICES.
Multisector
approach
Methodology
Juarez.

ACTION PLANS
P3: IMPROVE STORM AND FLOODWATER MANAGEMENT OF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE.
P5: PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT.
P9: PROMOTE URBAN IDENTITY AND PLACE MAKING.
Action plans
Juarez.

ACTION PLANS
P3: IMPROVE STORM AND FLOODWATER MANAGEMENT OF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE.
P5: PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT.
P9: PROMOTE URBAN IDENTITY AND PLACE MAKING.
Directly related to
energy policy and
infrastructure
Action plans
Juarez.

Action plans
P1: Improve the Preservation & Upkeep of Real Assets
Juarez.
Retrofit existing
buildings for higher
performance,
stronger structure,
additional floors
for residential
Rooftop solar
helps to pay for
upkeep of
structures
Also functions as
decentralized
power source in

kilowatt consumption per capita - the denser
the city the less energy people consume
empirical
statistical
studies show
that a city that is
twice as dense
consumes 12%
less energy.
Action plans
P2: Optimize Land Use Development
Juarez.

Action plans
P4: Incentivize Migration to Urban Center
Juarez.
A lot can be
achieved just
through electricity
tariff incentives
-10% for
downtown
Subsidies repaid by reduction in
unnecessary electricity infrastructure
sprawling to new neighborhoods
+ residents,
businesses

Juarez.
Action plans
P7: Improve Mobility To/From and Within City Center
Trolley buses on major routes to/from
city center, free city bikes within city
center

Juarez.
Action plans
P8: Promote Diversification of Businesses
● CAB
● Diversification Score
● Real Estate Market
Analysis
● Community Activities
achieving long-term
stability via
diversification

Juarez.
Action plans
P10: Provide Better Public Services
Combine infrastructure retrofits to reduce
construction costs. LED street lighting and
Wi-Fi bus stops at the same time as
electric buses or new power lines.

Juarez.
Proposal
Master Plan, Area D

Conclusion
GUDP Methodology
 city data from a multidisciplinary and academic lens
 small-scale experimental community-driven testing of new ideas
 Dr. Cesar Ochoa Hernandez –to support and communicate the benefits these projects would
generate in Juarez
 Federal Government – to provide the city with the necessary tools
 funds
 Including $100,000 per year to support Stanford GUDP projects
 overseeing capabilities
What we ask from you:

Conclusion
Each City as One Link
…
One Link at a Time

GLOBAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM: JUAREZ, MEXICO
DISCUSSION
MAY 29, 2015

Roundtable Discussion
❖ What interesting parallels were there in the two projects?
❖ What could be improved in the teaching methodology?
❖ What were some important lessons learned in the process as a student? An advisor?
❖ How important is the multidisciplinary nature of the project, and what are its limits?
❖ How important is the cross-institutional nature of the project, and what are its limits?
❖ How valuable is travel to a project of this nature?
❖ How important is service learning and human-centered design in the project?
❖ To what extent can current research at Stanford be integrated into this program?
❖ What are some ideas for future projects or project frameworks in GUDP?
❖ What lessons can be learned from the 2014-2015 academic for the future of GUDP/SUS?

Next Steps
❖ Derek will continue developing GUDP as a lecturer in the SDGC program
❖ Develop the learning model as a possible framework to future SUS program projects
❖ Currently working on a 3-quarter sequence with Sichuan University, focused on either San
Jose or Chengdu
❖ May also take select students as independent study or quarter-long studios to continue
developing work from Stockton and Juarez
❖ Other potential partner cities down the road: Christchurch, NZ and San Salvador, Ecuador
❖ Curriculum development summer of 2015, looking for academic feedback
❖ Looking for 1-2 TA’s to assist during the year
❖ Figuring out how to create a cycle from GUDP to real experimentation back to GUDP

Project Map
SU
SJSU
UACJ
UPR
LU
JUAREZ
STOCKTON
CHENGDU
SAN JOSE
CHRISTCHURCH
EL SALVADOR
SCU
UC

Symposium 2015

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Symposium 2015

Similaire à Symposium 2015 (20)

Plus de Global Urban Development Program

Plus de Global Urban Development Program (8)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Symposium 2015