The term "campus" concerns me --- when it comes to building one within a city. It seems to be inappropriate imagery if one is in the process of city-building. And initial imagery influences ultimate design.
Several years ago I wrote about this subject in the specific context of the University of Washington and I think the ideas I set forth there might apply to the Gates Foundation as well. Read this article from The Seattle Times about "Urban" or "Campus". Here is an excerpt:
Campuses are inward-looking, as pastoral as possible and remote from the hustle-bustle of the market. Nonprofit institutions such as colleges, universities and hospitals are inner-directed and prefer to control their own space.
The campus approach calls for buildings set back from the surrounding streets; there is usually limited access, often through a guarded gate. A city's streets have usually been vacated within the campus proper and there is little sense of being in a city, which of course is the whole point. (The word campus derives from a Latin word meaning field.)
Likewise, when an institution seeks to expand, it typically does so by carrying this approach further: spreading out its campus and creating an area of broad lawns, paths and limited auto traffic.
Read the whole thing; I offer some specific advice on how to do it right i.e. how an institution can contribute to a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. Obviously this is an important project. The Gates is huge and a bell-weather (I suspect) for other foundations so how it presents itself physically will be extremely influential. More personally, I live in Seattle, and I would like to see Seattle continue to evolve as an urban place; The Gates can have an enormous beneficial impact if it does it right. If it does a suburban office park — your typical campus — plunked down in the middle of a city it will be negative.