> It's not natural

A point of brutalism is "form follows function and "showcase the bare building materials" (1) - in other words, that's how the material looks, naturally. Bare, unpainted concrete is in fact more natural and honest than painted concrete. And brutalism deliberately leans into that naturalism (of modern materials).

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

The impression of Unnatural comes from the fact, that brutalist forms don't exist in Nature. Concrete is everything but not a natural material. Showing it isnt natural.

I am still buffed they are people defending brutalism. It is one of the biggest mistake in Architecture and one day these buildings will vanish.

> I am still buffed they are people defending brutalism

You are confused, describing is not the same as defending.

> It is one of the biggest mistake in Architecture

I don't necessary agree, but I didn't even take a position on that.

> and one day these buildings will vanish.

Over enough time, so will all buildings. But the sturdy one will last longer.

Bricks and glass panels also don’t exist in nature. Only we humans bring them about, just as we do with concrete.

The forms used in classical architecture are way more natural than just stupid plain concrete.

Yes, it would be more natural to live in a cave or a wooden hut. There's a long essay on the subject from a guy named Ted who put it into practice.

Brutalism is beautiful