Most of the new buildings have an ND "look." Crossroads is an exception to this, and in that respect is similar to Stepan, Grace/Flanner, etc. (Remember that they originally were going to build like 8 Grace/Flanners. They were also at one time going to knock down the Main Building and replace it with a square concrete slab.) The JACC looks fine if you cover up the 70s bits, like they did with the renovation to the basketball entrance.
Under Armour Stadium at Crossroads is in the Stepan/Grace/Flanner tradition. The fact that it has fake brick on it to "fit in" with the rest of the campus doesn't matter. You could put fake brick on a skyscraper on campus and it wouldn't fit in. It's way too big. The stadium could have been renovated without "attaching" three buildings to it.
The PR page for the project suggests that there are
no objective aesthetic standards, which is interesting for a Catholic university to suggest. People also used to think Hesburgh Library was ugly! Well, I
still think it is ugly (except for TD Jesus, of course). It could use a spruce-up around the bottom in particular to remove the 70s aura.
An ND official told the local club from my hometown that on a visit, and I believe it.
They were able to raise money for the new architecture building and the new social science building. ND's main function is raising money, and they could have raised the money for those buildings too. This was an athletics-driven project that needed a dubious ad-hoc academic justification, which was subsequently produced. "This integrates academics and athletics..." That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. So football players are going to go to sacred music class and then practice right after? It's such a short walk now! These are not serious arguments. But if ND is shaking the tin it apparently doesn't need to provide a good justification to satisfy many rich people, which is too bad.