December 2025.
I was at Half Price Books earlier this month browsing the architecture section, and I found a reasonably priced book that discussed the other competition entries for the Wexner Center. I found them interesting and thought I’d make a blog post regarding the unbuilt proposals that could have been. The book also goes into detail about the background of the competition and the building’s program.
An excerpt from the foreword reads: “The five entries in this competition span a variety of styles and languages beyond the bounds of modernism. We do not permit ourselves to use the term “postmodern” to describe them, as such a term allows for confusion and misreading…The winning entry [Eisenman’s] is a stunning variation on the contemporary sensibility…[T]his work is also about memory, about the constant contextual variation which shapes all history. The result is an eclectic collage, developed so that it is barely recognizable from the sky, worked so that the simplicity and spontaneity of the first parti sketch is translated into a never before imagined object.”
Then-president of Ohio State, Edward Jennings, wrote that the university was one of few without a “focal point” for visual arts, and that he approved of its expression as a “strong architectural statement.” At the time, Eisenman’s winning design was perceived as a groundbreaking precedent. To say that perception has changed today is an understatement.
Entry 1 - Cesar Pelli with Dalton, van Dijk, Johnson, & Partners
Cesar Pelli was a notable architect who was the dean of Yale’s architecture school at the time and later designed famous buildings such as the Petronas Tower in Kuala Lumpur and Salesforce Tower in San Francisco. He was partnered with the Cleveland firm Dalton, van Dijk, Johnson, & Partners, which constructed several buildings around Cleveland and helped restore historic buildings downtown.
The associated architects placed their design on the eastern end of the Oval, mirroring Thompson Library as its terminus. They considered the Oval to be incomplete in its expression and too large, and the placement of a new building on the eastern end would both mimic the form of notable precedents and obscure the “unattractive commercial strip” that was High Street at the time. The interior would be centered around a central atrium on the “long walk” of the Oval, and the design seemed to be more focused on education than the existing Wexner Center.
This rendering depicts a crystalline atrium piercing the brick facade, and diagrams of the building’s circulation and spatial effect:
More renderings and model photos of the odd crescent-shaped form:
Hand-drawn elevations--definitely a more abstract Postmodern design:
I understand the intention of mirroring the library, but this one is definitely weird.
Entry 2 - Arthur Erickson with Feinknopf, Macioce, & Schappa
Arthur Erickson was considered one of (if not the) most influential Canadian architects, designing notable projects in Vancouver and Toronto. Feinknopf Macioce Schappa (as they are known today) are a Columbus firm known more for preservation and renovation work of prominent buildings across Ohio.
In this design, Erickson and FMS took a more site-based approach to the design and sought to integrate the various art buildings nearby, such as Mershon Auditorium, Weigel Hall, and Sullivant Hall, into one larger complex. Like Pelli and van Dijk, the two took the perspective of “completing the Oval,” though here it would be accomplished differently. The design would retain the main axis of the Oval better, despite the fact it would be still interrupted by a reflecting pool. The site itself would become an art gallery and art would “make its presence felt.” I was confused about the lack of buildings above ground, but apparently the space would be underground.
The site-based approach is pretty unique, but I really cringe at the idea of turning the Oval into whatever this thing is.
A rendering of the overall site--lots of geometric yet classical designs:
Postmodern architecture could appear almost dream-like in its oddness and idiosyncrasy. This is a pretty good example, with the long stairwell and bridge above:
There’s even a little colonnade at the level of the reflecting pool:
Could you imagine if they actually built this?! Another pool to drain for the Xichigan game every year.
Entry 3 - Michael Graves with Lorenz & Williams Incorporated
Michael Graves was one of the most prominent Postmodern architects, one of the New York Five and a member of the Memphis Group. He is well known for his designs for the Portland Building and Denver Public Library. At the time, he was a professor at Princeton, a position he held for almost 40 years. Lorenz & Williams is a Dayton firm best known for their now-demolished addition to Thompson Library. The partner working with Graves was Stephen J. Carter, who also worked on the Riverdesign Dayton project.
Graves and Carter’s design is more of an oddball than the others, and it is the only one centered on 17th Avenue instead of 15th. Their classically-influenced plan would be centered around a circular atrium capped by a drum, and the building would be perfectly on-axis with adjacent Arps Hall to the north. Aside from the more idiosyncratic public spaces, the classrooms and studios would have been more function-focused.
This design is definitely the most orthodox Postmodern, with its overtly classical and symmetrical form and massive drum. I do like it better than the two before, but I think Eisenman’s design is more original.
The sides appear almost Egyptian temple-like:
I really like this elevation:
…as well as this one:
Entry 4 - Kallmann, McKinnell, & Wood with Nitschke Associates
KMW still exists today, but at the time it was a Massachusetts firm best known for their controversial design for Boston City Hall. Although they did not win this competition, they eventually designed the Fisher College of Business campus. They were partnered with Charles Nitschke’s firm, who did both adaptive reuse and new construction.
The associated architects’ design would be informed by the dualities of the site and urban landscape. The design also uses classical elements such as a pedestrian mall, rotundas, and columns. One building would mirror Page Hall’s rotation in relation to the others nearby with its curved wall, but another would completely obscure Mershon Auditorium’s south facade. KMW considered Sullivant, Mershon, and Weigel to be ignorant of the Oval’s fabric and conceived of this design as a method to mediate it.
This design is more orthogonal, but the connector is very curvilinear.
Though the buildings themselves aren’t classical, they make a symmetrical and axial procession that very much is:
Entry 5 - Peter Eisenman with Trott & Bean
As we all know, Eisenman designed the winning entry, which was ultimately constructed. I’ll leave out the history covered in part 1 in favor of the unique material I learned from this source.
Eisenman and Trott planned a building that would be avant-garde like the art displayed inside of it. Unlike the other designs, it would occupy an odd crevice between Weigel Hall and Mershon Auditorium, mostly below grade, and between the two sites proffered by the university. It also sought to maintain the existing axis from High Street to Thompson Library uninterrupted. In project form, it had a more aggressive intervention in terms of the grid than what was actually built.
The brick outline of the old Armory was not fully built, but everything else visible here existed at the time of construction.
Plan view of the model:
View of the grove:
More model views:
An interesting dimension of the Wexner Center that I didn’t learn until recently is actually the tragedy of its slow undermining. This was mostly relayed to me by my history/theory professor. In Ohio State’s current pursuit of its neo-Modernist yet traditional aesthetics for campus, they are working to erase the Wexner Center’s sprawling intervention on the eastern end of the Oval, as current master planners have a distaste for its architecture. The outline of the old Armory, as indicated in the drawings above, has been partially obscured with the construction of Timashev. (My professor elaborated that the architect of that building, Robert A. M. Stern’s firm, had a distaste for Eisenman’s work.) It was, interestingly, partially maintained through a layer of brick on the sidewalk. The original hardscaped grid of trees that reinforced the Columbus street grid has been replaced with grass, and OSU also plans to demolish the garden on the northeast side of the site, as it is missing on Framework 3.0.
Quick Google Maps snapshot of the site today. Timashev obscures part of the facade and the trees are altered.
Outline of the Armory established both with the construction of the Wexner Center and maintained in Timashev’s design.
Even though I’ve never been too enthused with the Wexner Center’s design, I am still indignant that Ohio State is squandering one of the most intentionally designed buildings on its campus. I doubt the entire thing will be demolished, but the loss of features that bolster its expression weaken the composition as a whole. One day we are going to look back at the Postmodern landmarks that have been lost, as many of those buildings are going out of fashion today.
