I suppose we just have to chalk it up to different tastes in art. To me, my first thought on seeing most of those pictures is how they look like settings for some implausibly dystopian sci-fi movie.

No doubt. I find these churches amazingly beautiful.

I also think in the sense of how a church in 1500 was not a relic of the past the way we view a church from 1500 today. I would say a church from 1500 was much closer to what the churches in this article would have been in 1500.

Of course, there is a real issue that while I find these amazingly beautiful I would never go to one because I am not the least bit Christian or religious.

Somewhat to that last point, my emotional reaction to these structures would be completely different if I knew they were designed to be car parks.

I don’t have a car, but I would love for the parking garage near me look like the churches in the article (putting aside the practical differences in requirements). Similarly, I would welcome one on these church buildings replacing one of my neighborhood churches just to give us something different to look at.

Probably the most famous Brutalist public art in Texas, the Fort Worth Water Gardens, was indeed used in filming of Logan's Run.

I've generally found the Brutalist buildings in Texas rather ugly on the exterior at least, but did find a sense of comfort in occupying them; perhaps there's something cave-like and solid about their atmosphere. I did enjoy visiting the Water Gardens; I think it's a good expression of the style.

However, many of the churches pictured here are on another level. Something about the austere concrete juxtaposed to the wooden pews (and speaking as someone raised Catholic, it's hard to imagine a pew brutal enough to satisfy god) works quite well for me. I'm really impressed by some of these.

Yeah, it's different tastes. I'm split on these in a different way than I've seen in the other comments, because I generally hate brutalist buildings from the outside, but think the interiors are fantastic (including most in TFA). When it comes to churches I think that's somehow symbolically appropriate.

Interesting, nearly all the photos in the article did for me.

Brutalism IMO relies on imposing designs. In outdoor spaces, this can lead to feelings of oppression, as anyone who has traversed a high-rise complex at night can attest.

When there is enough space, such as in a church, library, public transport infra etc, the concrete monoliths suddenly become more distant and less threatening and you can really appreciate the effect of being in some kind of ancient future ruin.

> Brutalism IMO relies on imposing designs

I disagree. Brutalism is based on dropping any pretense of the material used to construct the building. No shiny glass veneer or facade, just concrete buildings reveling their concreteness with no artifice. If large middle age cathedrals are supposed to inspire a sense of the devine, then IMO brutalist churches inspire a sense of guilelessness.