while I find this thread fuckin funny, I'm also wondering what is the crucial difference between me and the OP, as I'm a huge fan of this architectural style, especially the geometrically harsh brutalism

I don't feel alienated or imposed on by these forms, rather stimulated
---
RT @wrathofgnon
"We'd like a park kiosk where families can buy ice-cre..."
"TENDERNESS BETWEEN PEOPLE IS MERELY THE AWARENESS OF RELATIONS WITHOUT PURPOSE."
https://twitter.com/wrathofgnon/status/905307345885904896

and yet, I know many here are repulsed by the very same; clearly it stems from an underlying aesthetic difference, but which? is it a desire for symmetry, a more greebled appearance, or a more traditional, easily parsed one? the sharp, unforgiving edges? or mb the complexity?

I understand the concerns of human sized space, of affordances and architectural UX; I've read my Alexander. but this seems compatible with this aesthetic style, to me. perhaps it's a conflict btwn the aesthetics of the designers and the intended occupants?

but, how would that be properly addressed? focus groups? ethnographies? surveys? consider that there are likely many distinct cultural subgroups for each of these; won't someone always be displeased? should we regress to a boring corporate mean? its certainly the choice some make

some of these I do agree with, particularly the US embassy one; a building should exude vibes appropriate to its purpose, being a cultural transmitter from the past to the future; many others, I'm not so sure. is architectural innovation impossible? or is just another culture war