It’s the definition of brutalism (mostly exposed, functional, concrete) and I totally agree. Its a box being sold as luxury and I have definitely imagined it being tenements in 100 years or less.
Good read, but in all honesty, this is the kind of bs that makes people hate architects (especially us engineers). “oh my Hans, it’s one year too late to part of thaaat period!”. Wait, what? Says who? I do appreciate categorizing styles and noting periods where they appeared, but damn, you don’t need a different style name just because the designer farted before sealing it for construction.
Well damn. Who does like architects then? Nobody on the construction side seems very fond of them either. Maybe developers like them? Idk.
I like architects!!! 
Me to, I planed on becoming one before getting distracted by computers. 
Developers certainly do not like architects.
I mean, I think there’s a middle ground between an in-depth academic analysis of the brutalist movement (much of the blog post was as new to me as it was to you) and “it haz concrete so it must be brutalist!!”
Point here is that skyhouse is not brutalism even from a cross-your-eyes-and-see-if-it’s-close test. It’s literally mostly glass, and it’s got post-modern flourishes on the crown, which is the antithesis of brutalism. Skyhouse is just crappy design, regardless of materials.
Anyway, raw concrete can be used in beautiful, anti-brutalist ways.
Yes, lots of people hate architects… being an advocate for the owner and the design generally runs counter to everyone else’s goals – the bottom line.
(we’ve got our fair share of pretentious folks too, to be fair. If you think I’m bad, you should meet some of my colleagues 
).
Only the ones that love Brutalism but have no overall sense of style.
I’m convinced most people who defend brutalism only like it ironically lmao. There are a handful of brutalist maserpieces (mostly in South Asia) that I really like. But as a whole, the built environment would be better off if it never happened.
I went to architecture school and I really dislike architects generally (excepting personal friends of mine), and there is definitely a correlation there. I do like me some McMansion Hell, though. I also believe in calling things what they are, and not calling them what they are not. The building pictured is imho brutally ugly, but “brutalism” should be reserved for the actual ism and not to denigrate a building just for being ugly. After all there are way more colorful potential descriptions for that building. An architectural vampire sucking the life out of the north end of the city, for example.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: The Archdale building (pictured) is so damn ugly its cute.
You had me until the last two words!
I’ve been watching HBO’s Chernobyl series, and the Archdale looks like something plucked out of Pripyat, but somehow less attractive.
The very core of the city is just a couple of blocks east of Union Station. That’s not an unreasonable distance to ask folks to walk from a train. Plus, it adds street life to the sidewalks.
Can we suspend accounts or maybe lashings for commenting on this thread unless there’s going to be something built? I open the page (maybe a billion times a day) and see this thread pop up and for 25ms I have hope, then my dreams are dashed cause we’re talking about the Archdale building or boring parking lots. 
so do we start the suspension with your post or the one after it (mine)? 
After this one. 