Brutalist concrete buildings like Boston City Hall are often called ugly, but I think they're honest architecture that reflects the raw materials and social ideals of their era. For decades, people have debated tearing them down, citing leaks, maintenance costs, and cold aesthetics, yet some cities are now retrofitting them for modern use. The real question is whether we preserve buildings that many find physically oppressive just because they represent a historical moment. Should the public's daily comfort outweigh architectural significance, or are we too quick to judge a style that's simply out of fashion?