I do also hate the brutalist movement, a movement which seems to have been created for the pure purpose of throwing out thousands of years of learning on how sp

I do also hate the brutalist movement, a movement which seems to have been created for the pure purpose of throwing out thousands of years of learning on how spaces should work for humans and how buildings should look to be pleasing. Yet, there are a few beautiful examples of the style, many of them are in the article here, there's others as well (see Saarinen's works for examples). I know there's an unusual contingent of brutalist fans here on HN...I know they're unusual because by and large people don't travel to take pictures of brutalist buildings, but they'll take pictures of just about anything else. Very few people pay brutalist architecture much attention other than how they're going to deal with these expensive, often poorly designed, crumbling buildings, very few of which last more than a few decades. The nearest major city to me is full of brutalist buildings, and after just a handful of decades of use, it's being found cheaper to tear them down and start over than to try to fix them. People who work in them avoid them as much as they can, nobody likes walking near them or in their courtyards, they've proven to be terrible public spaces in general. I wonder if what makes the examples in the OP look worth saving is that they're brutalist or that they're brutalist forms of other, previous, architecture movements?