it's incredibly apt to me that the spiderverse team specifically drew upon brutalism as the primary style for the architecture of spider society because it's a style simultaneously linked to this notion of raw honesty (because you expose the material laying at the core of the structure) + social wellfare (as concrete was relatively cheaper to use and thus you got a lot of cheaper housing utilising this style), egalitarian by nature - it all looks the same, function over form etc.

but it ended up also getting associated with the structural flaws present in social wellfare systems by virtue of where it was applied as well as it being a style that's quite intense by nature (some would even argue ugly fjdfjk), and thus you get people implicitly associating it with those structural flaws and thinking of it as oppressive, even though the movement wasn't like. intentionally trying to cultivate that impression or be utilised in such a way.

which is interesting to me because that kind of duality works perfectly with the kind of tonal shift miles goes through when operating in that environment. spider society is at first wonderous and bright and brilliant, evocative of endless possibilties and stylistically almost like a large concrete web. but when miles is failed by that system, the large concrete web becomes constraining and suffocating.

hell, the idealogical roots of brutalism even work to an extent with the idealogical roots of spider society. neither was cultivated with the active intent to cause harm, and they're both associated with the desire to promote a future that is providing for the people utilsing it, but ultimately it's a tool. and any tool can be one that, inadvertently or otherwise, causes harm.