It doesn't say "city of the future" to me, as the author seems to suggest, but city of the past. And not the glorious past or the beautiful past, but a period of architecture dominated by harsh lines, masses of exposed concrete, and the idea of architecture expressing domination over the land and over the people who used it.
Brutalism, here in the UK, is largely seen as an ugly mistake. I would categorise this with it.
I won't argue with your city of the past argument as I'm not sure I'd term it as the dominant architecture of a city of the future, but I think it definitely has a place. I would argue against Brutalism expressing domination over people - I've always seen it more as expressing function in form, which would be the opposite. Given it's close ties to Soviet architecture I can see how a lot of the buildings built in the style would have literally been used for the oppression of individual will, however.
Also, with regards to it's opinion in the UK and worldwide, Brutalism is experiencing something of a revival:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutali...
https://www.europeanceo.com/lifestyle/brutalisms-message-may...
https://houseandhome.com/decorating-design/brutalism-revival...
It expresses the architect's idea of function, which may or may not have anything to do with the actual users. However, whenever the actual users of a building complain about the poor UX (noise, leaks, discomfort difficulty finding things in the layout) or their feeling of unhappiness induced by the blankness, it's traditional for Modernists to tell the public and users that they're wrong. It's that elitism which more than anything else characterises the failures of Modernism, of which Brutalism is a part.
I think the argument you're making lends itself well to a criticism of any pre-planned system.
I hope this 'revival' is strangled in infancy.
I also disagree that it is function in form - brutalist buildings often fail to perform their function well, usually due to ignoring human factors like requiring light and air, or encouraging criminality and vandalism by having dark, semi-accessible corners.
I look at brutalist structures like the Heyward Gallery and despair that anyone could have thought inflicting that on the world was doing it good, when looking across the river at what else London has to offer.
I appreciate that if everything was Brutalist it would be an overwhelming sight, but I definitely think it has its place.
I'm also not keen on the Hayward personally, but places like Brunel University, the Barbican and the airport in the article have a really nice reduced functionalist style with interesting angles and use of glass.
Edit: Also in terms of popularity of Brutalism, the Barbican is constantly getting praise, and I think has or had architecture tours happening.
To me it still looks violence, depression and poverty, summed up in miserable, grey-brown concrete.
"The campaign to save Robin Hood Gardens drew very little support from those who actually had to live in the building, with more than 75% of residents supporting its demolition when consulted by the local authority."
There's more than one type of ugly around. Brutalist buildings in the UK are some of the worst, bleakest and profoundly unfriendly places.