[1] It was designed by Richards, McCarty & Bulford in the Streamline Moderne style, with rounded corners, a flat roof, and its exterior and interior walls predominantly made from glass blocks, a new innovation in the 1930s.

The American Education Press building was designed by the Columbus-based firm Richards, McCarty & Bulford in the Streamline Moderne style, and built by E. Elford & Son, also of Columbus.

[2] It had a concrete foundation, steel frame, and exterior walls consisting of uninterrupted alternating horizontal bands of light-colored Kittanning brick, Bedford limestone, and glass blocks.

[1][5][6] The building's flat roof was made of reinforced concrete, gypsum slabs, and large sawtooth skylights.

[2][10][11] The material was chosen for its appearance and ability to diffuse light, giving a comfort and attractiveness to its occupants; it also carried a low maintenance cost, with cleaning not as urgent as with plain glass.

The thickness and hollow interiors of the glass blocks created an insulating value comparable to a 13-inch brick wall.

[7][2] The company had a strong desire for the building to maximize daylight, with large window areas yet highly diffused light.

[2] The building became the most memorable for its use of glass block for Columbus residents of the time,[12] and it was considered to be the first "all-glass" structure in the city.

The private offices had windows onto Front and Fulton Streets, the art department was on the north side of the building, and the other spaces, making up most of the floor area, were lit by large skylights and glass block interior walls.

It was regarded by the Columbus AIA in 1976 as one of few extreme 1930s streamline modern buildings in American cities, and as an exceptional example of the style.

[27] By 1984, the building housed its domestic relations court, the Alliance for Cooperative Justice, the probation department, as well as the port authority and office on aging.

[8] Despite its appreciation by architects and the Columbus Landmarks Foundation, building tenants began to dislike the structure, concerned about heating difficulties, broken or missing glass blocks, lack or inefficient use of space, and roof leaks.

A local architect recommended renovating the building, potentially adding floors to double its square footage.