Maybe it's not brutalist, but it's certainly brutal to the eyes.
> The term ‘brutalism’ was coined by the British architects Alison and Peter Smithson, and popularised by the architectural historian Reyner Banham in 1954. It derives from ‘Béton brut’ (raw concrete) and was first associated in architecture with Le Corbusier, who designed the Cite Radieuse in Marseilles in the late-1940s.
But since the word can be used as an insult in English, it's used with no reference to its original meaning, obscuring the fact it's a botched translation.
Furthermore, “brutal” is also a word in French, meaning the same thing as it does in English.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that the Frenchmen who coined the phrase intended it to refer both to the rawness or the concrete and the brutality of the design, they can’t have been unaware of the associations.
I mean, "brutal" and "raw" are related concepts. In fact I think the words are sometimes paired in English - i.e. "raw brutality".
You could argue that it's not brutalism if it's not concrete, but that seems unnecessarily narrow to me.
Is it unreasonable to look at a large construction of raw concrete and think of a host of related concepts, that it looks raw, hard, unforgiving, and stark?
in english, in the modern age, brutalist implies brutality.