>>1992I get what you mean. They're idealistic but they're not utopian, the cold harshness of the style is just a realistic depiction of the character of imposed ideals. I think it's why brutalism tends to share associations with the post-modern style, because they're both coming from a position of pessimism or disillusionment with the optimism of modernist utopias. If an architect uses his buildings to force an idealized behavior onto its users, he certainly is acting the role of a fascist. Being all concrete, inhuman and dystopic is simply honest.
Imo, for architecture to be awarded the designation 'futurist', it should be attempting to enable a radical departure from current human lifestyles. For example, Claude Parents experiments with Virilio with oblique architecture or Constant's New Babylon.
Buildings that just try to evoke the contemporary aesthetic style of the imagined near-future aren't really futuristic. They're contemporary, because they're stuck on current taste and trends for their style. They're not any different in mindset than those silly space age buildings we call retrofuturism today, except those were made 40ish year ago.
I guess we can't the buildings we're making today that seem so 'futuristic' now but will look quaint af 30 years from now retrofuturistic, because it already describes the 60s, so we'll have to call it neo-retrofuturistic.
Except it's not retro yet. So until it's retro it'll have to be called proto-neoretrofuturism.
Protoneoretrofuturism is dumb, imo.
