Yes, Sam is probably just having a bit of fun here, but I think it's worth presenting brutalism correctly as it's often so misunderstood.

Concrete is simply the mass production medium of the time, many of the patterns and moulds used in Barbican for example feature pretty timber imprints, scalloping patterns, painstakingly pick-hammered textured panels, or pleasing swooping shapes.

Further there is always space for glass, brass, Terrazzo and lighting.

Sam's design does feel cold, unnatural and broken, definitely not what brutalist living is about.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/feb/22...

https://www.structuralrenovations.co.uk/portfolio/barbican-e...

https://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/barbican-story/construction...

Most brutalism was never intended to last. It was intended to be a quick/cheap answer to get people acceptable housing in the cities. Then they would build something nicer for people to live in as the economy gets richer. Which is why it so often is associated with decay these days - the structure still stands, but it has outlasted the expected lifespan.

There are burtalism structures that were intended to be beautiful and last. They do that well (well beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but the majority was quick and cheap above all else.

Yes I had the same thought.

Imo brutalism is monolithic and unyielding. This is opposite, with the sturdy concrete yielding into plant overgrowth and exposed rebar.

My understanding of brutalism is that it’s an extreme interpretation of “function over form”. The most brutalist laptop stand would be a cardboard box turned upside down, not a slightly impractical block of concrete carefully manufactured to evoke a certain aesthetic.