It looks extremely similar to Ohio State's architecture building.

All uninspiring. I'm very disappointed the University stayed so local in their choices of firms to enter this "competition." So much great architecture happening, and we select boring to represent KSU.

Jim, that's a bit harsh - Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It isn't necessary to be insulting.

I just hope the curbs aren't too high. Those always give me trouble...

Odd that these design concepts mostly ignore arches, circles and curving walls. One might expect these essential curvilinear elements of the design vocabulary would appear somewhere to offset the multitude of squares, triangles and rectangles. A premium is placed on open interior space to reveal and encourage activity. This seems to jibe with the trends of social networking and diversity but are these proven to enhance focused learning and study? It is certain the completed bulding will be amazing even if the designers appear to be inevitably captured by these times. I anticipated a statement which sums up the entirely of architecture in a completely original and functional manner. That might not have been possible with the requirements for energy efficiency, classroom space and budget limitations. Imagine the difficutly of arriving at a pleasing design which meets all the institutional specifications!

Derek, since these "designs are meant to inform students of what sustainable economy is", I take it that there shall be solar panels out the wazoo and a green roof to capture and re-use rain water as well as runoff? Will there be wind powered generators for the students laptops? No? Well, not a great model for sustainability.
I agree with Mr. Roger Thurman, circles and curves are found all the time in nature- even in the surrounding space of the upcoming building.

The green roof are there, on design 1 & 2. To achieve Sustainability, you do not necessary need solar power, they are for places with large land area to be effective in producing power. Add on to that solar panels are expensive. The Arch building was to be built under a budget and to consider a life of a architecture student and its surrounding area. These buildings were also design with architecture student's input. In addition all of the buildings were design to Achieve LEED silver and above.

The WRL proposal looks like an OSU College of Architecture copycat. Bowen's design has some practicality issues, with an overkill of glass that concerns me. ARO/Bialosky seems the most realistic. Were they the only team shooting for LEED Platinum?

Yes, the Bowen design is worrisome in that it is loaded with glass and structures which obviously levitate. Great for a presentation, but creating massive difficulties in heating and cooling - only to be partially mitigated by massively expensive and complicated assemblies. Apparently he assumes a wonderful new source of energy.

After viewing the displays at the KSU library I find the Bowen Weiss/Manfredi most inspiring, although my reaction a few days ago was contrary. The extensive use of glass will bring cheerful light info the building to offset our many gray days. This transparency lightens the structure and provides a faceted aesthetic transition from the campus to downtown. In spite of the size and climb of the tiered loft concept it will simulatneously please viewers but not overwhelm. Compared with the others the subtle curving footprint and transparencies convey an almost joyous, wondrous, whimsical aspect. It is so different from the adjacent structures yet it will not diminish them. Witness the garden paths emanating like tendrils from the building's south side openings, arfully blending with the adjacent terrain and houses. The library display presents two models, one in medium aspect to the nearby campus buildings and another much broader to show how the building dwells in the surrounding cityscape. Because of its radient prominence this will be an iconic building for Kent and the university. I can't speak to the issues of maintenance and energy usage compared with the other designs but it seems these architects must know how to handle those equally important aspects.

Saw the exhibit too, and Bialosky's model is the best by a landslide. Amazing craft & well translated. It's clear by their display they put the most sweat and tears into the project. (Remember, Weiss/ Manfreidi's public presentation... over half of it was past work / precedent?!? Pair that with a model with no passion. Effort wasn't there.)

I do agree Bialosky's is by far the best. I think it may have been a little harsh saying Weiss/Manfreidi's work lacked vision and effort. Often times we stick with what we know and do the best. Like artists, architects tend to work within their comfort zone.
http://www.mccree.com