Much like how backstage in a theater is often full of visible plywood, ropes, and mundanity while the front is all velvet and polished hardwood, a government building is a front for the face of the government to outside parties. An embassy, in example, is a government building, but if your embassy is comparable with a old western two-cage prison except with more molds and mildews, it's going to reflect poorly on your representation to those countries. Conspicuous spending: You declare how successful you are by how wasteful you are, and it directly translates to the respect you both deserve and get. You can say you're totally above it, but if you went into a restaurant that was all gold and hardwood, and one that had broken beams and plain clearly-patched spackle for walls, you'd feel more confident about eating in the one than the other, it's not just human condition, many animals do it too. Some birds make nests just to show off to mates, and have a "Real" nest elsewhere.
A lot of money should go into making the buildings look good. Keep them clean. Keep them maintained. Keep their aesthetic representative of the country they are representing. You are not from Shitstain, you're from America, and anyone should FEEL that on entering an American government building.
That stated, true brutalist archetecture I find often to be ugly, personally, but it IS very utilitarian, you'd like it given your statement here. The goal of brutalism is defensive lines, durability, and utility in that order, with "aesthetics" never even appearing on the list. It was mainly found in the USSR, as it represented THEIR country: no spare thought for appearances, just an iron and cement unyielding force.
All that stated, people have tried making purely functional buildings, pure glass so they can be supervised at all times, no walling, no gargoyles, no paintings, just glass, and the reflected light off it was causing burns to nearby buildings and pedestrians. Sometimes a bit of decoration is an important part of function.
I disagree.
Much like how backstage in a theater is often full of visible plywood, ropes, and mundanity while the front is all velvet and polished hardwood, a government building is a front for the face of the government to outside parties. An embassy, in example, is a government building, but if your embassy is comparable with a old western two-cage prison except with more molds and mildews, it's going to reflect poorly on your representation to those countries. Conspicuous spending: You declare how successful you are by how wasteful you are, and it directly translates to the respect you both deserve and get. You can say you're totally above it, but if you went into a restaurant that was all gold and hardwood, and one that had broken beams and plain clearly-patched spackle for walls, you'd feel more confident about eating in the one than the other, it's not just human condition, many animals do it too. Some birds make nests just to show off to mates, and have a "Real" nest elsewhere.
A lot of money should go into making the buildings look good. Keep them clean. Keep them maintained. Keep their aesthetic representative of the country they are representing. You are not from Shitstain, you're from America, and anyone should FEEL that on entering an American government building.
That stated, true brutalist archetecture I find often to be ugly, personally, but it IS very utilitarian, you'd like it given your statement here. The goal of brutalism is defensive lines, durability, and utility in that order, with "aesthetics" never even appearing on the list. It was mainly found in the USSR, as it represented THEIR country: no spare thought for appearances, just an iron and cement unyielding force.
All that stated, people have tried making purely functional buildings, pure glass so they can be supervised at all times, no walling, no gargoyles, no paintings, just glass, and the reflected light off it was causing burns to nearby buildings and pedestrians. Sometimes a bit of decoration is an important part of function.