I was born in the 70s, so when I first started paying attention to my surroundings, brutalist buildings were the new, modern, better buildings. Being in them was just a much more positive experience than being in the old pre-war buildings. I never thought of them as gloomy bunkers, or whatever cliche phrase people throw around to shit on them. That interior shot in the article makes me miss how there used to be a general sense that things were just going to continue to improve and by the year 2020 we'd have all the problems solved.
As a boy building buildings out of legos in the 1970s, most of my buildings looked like Paul Rudolphs. Without knowing it was him, it was clearly his style (and a few others of that era) that defined what I thought a building should look like. (or Frank Gehry's Rouse Company HQ, or John Portmans' mirror-outside/brutalist-inside Peachtree Plaza Hotel)
At the same time, I hadn't yet learned anything about urbanism, beyond what James Rouse had implemented in Columbia, MD (neighborhoods rolled up into villages...) There was absolutely nothing about streescape or store front or mixing into and out of places as a pedestrian. I'll stick with: Rudolph's buildings are worth preserving in "campus" settings, but are harder to justify in urban streetscapes.