A person with a background in architecture probably has a different understanding about the meaning and origin of the very word "brutalism" than the average bys

A person with a background in architecture probably has a different understanding about the meaning and origin of the very word "brutalism" than the average bystander does, so it's hard to say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture "Brutalism" as an architectural critical term was not always consistently used by critics ... "brutalism" has become used in popular discourse to refer to buildings of the late twentieth century that are large or unpopular – as a synonym for "brutal" – making its effective use in architectural historical discourse problematic. "Brutalist" in English is a terrible, misleading name. It was about futurism and misplaced faith in concrete as a miracle material, not brutality. Given the way so many bad Brutalist buildings look, it's easy to see how people could make the mistake. It seems to me that at least a few well-known architectural trends consist of 1) a few amazing masterpieces that become instant classics and 2) 20x as many cheap knock-offs, which everyone comes to hate, which are consequently not maintained well, which eventually give the trend a bad name. The "International Style" is the other example (alongside Brutalism) that stands out in my mind; for every Seagram building or Lever House, there are dozens (hundreds?) of copycat school buildings or anonymous low-budget office cubes that end up looking like prisons.