Case Study No.2:
Constraints as Design catalysts
In Case Study No.1, we examined this Victory Lakes Plaza project from a financial point of view, but let’s now explore how these constraints also helped shape the design decisions. The neighboring property had an existing cross-access easement, which we embraced as a design constraint and strategic opportunity. By anchoring a new double-loaded parking aisle from this node, we:
Improved parking efficiency
Activated the building’s side façade for additional parking
Reduced unnecessary added circulation and pavement area
However, this layout placed our main parking lot entrance closer to the main roadway, triggering concerns from the city about vehicular deceleration and turning movements. A traffic study and turn lane was nearly imposed. Fortunately, we successfully demonstrated—at the pre-development stage—that the scale of our project did not warrant such measures, avoiding unnecessary costs and undue burden.
Ultimately, we were able to reduce overall parking lot area while increasing the number of parking spaces, thereby unlocking additional allowable floor area. This directly translated to increased leasable square footage and enhanced long-term ROI. With a portion of the site now freed from overbuilt parking lot, we pivoted to elevate the project beyond the functional metrics and into one with lasting identity and design character.
The project typology aligned with a retail strip center- yet most “shopping plazas” neglect to provide an actual plaza for pedestrians. The previous site plan typified this disconnect—offering only a narrow sidewalk for utilitarian circulation.
With our reclaimed site area, we were able to integrate a true pedestrian plaza space, enriching the tenant and user experience.
Key Design Challenges and Responses:
Setback vs. Visibility: Introducing such a generous plaza pushed the building pad rearward again, which would have hurt visibility. Rather than sacrificing the plaza, we embraced creating new design elements to provide a tectonic envelope that better balanced solid and void space to seize the opportunity.
Climate Response: To address the southern sun and heat exposure, we introduced a deep roof overhang above the plaza, which could not fully cantilever such a distance. This led to a colonnaded façade, adding rhythm and architectural expression that contrasted the typology of the storefront ribbon windows.
Form and Scale: With no FAR (floor-area-ratio) left to add a second floor, we introduced some scale and added verticality by tilting the cantilevered roof upward, opening it’s aperture to the highway which added a strong visual presence of exposing the soffit “underbelly” and simultaneously enhanced airflow through the plaza via a venturi effect.
Column Design: With the desired scale for the façade achieved, the columns became disproportionately slender for the increased roof canopy height. The typical retail center solution for this is to enlarge the column jackets for the appearance of stereotonics that belies the nature of the actual structure. Instead, we elected to use the opportunity to express part of the structure skeletally. The structural steel columns were bared naked and split at the top into a Y-branching motif—much like tree limbs tapering as they rise—maintaining a tectonic character while preserving balance and proportion.
Tenant Signage: The column design and soaring roof aperture successfully dissolved the massing of the façade which would have hurt the visibility of tenant signage. Rather than mount tenant signage directly above the setback storefront (where it would be obstructed by the colonnade and adjacent building), we developed a “signage band”: a floating planar band bridging across the columns. This atypical feature enhanced vehicular wayfinding while defining a gate-like threshold into the shaded plaza.
With the major design elements in place, we then turned attention to sculpting the building’s “saloon box” volume with architectural finesse:
Roof Wing: The expression of the intersections of design elements is a key decision. We extended the dominating roof on either end to create eave conditions, providing the appearance of volume for the canopy element with an airfoil-like profile derived from it’s dramatic “flying” wing aesthetic.
Side Walls: Planar end walls were broken with vertical slit reliefs at 1/3 intervals, their planar prominence enhanced by modest parapet extensions.
Materials Palette: We chose a palette typical for the retail typology and enhanced it with architectural details such as the contrasting stripe banding in CMU which expresses the structural bond beams, and metal cladding for the flying roof element to reinforce the aviation derived airfoil motif.
The storefront glazing system is a standard size but the mullion grid was stretched to emphasize horizontal banding as with the other walls. Limiting to a minimal utilization of EIFS in strategic locations enhances the quality and durability of the building envelope.
Contextual Sensitivity: Though we considered omitting the rear parapet for further emphasizing the end wall planes, we retained it out of respect for the neighboring hotel’s frontal viewshed.
