Perhaps the Brutalist philosophy in architecture evolved as a response to this particular circumstance?

And well yes, the obvious response to raw unfinished materials is to create a counterpoint of luxury. See Louis Kahn
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phillips_Exeter_Library,_New_Hampshire_-_Louis_I._Kahn_(1972)b.jpg ]

Thank you for the link, which suggests that Rayner Banham may have intented the term Brutalism and the Smithsons were leading practitioners. I first heard the term ‘Brutalism’ from a very civilized architect-planner-engineer (probaly in 1968) who said with a mixture of pride and amusement that ‘You know, they are calling it Brutalist architecture’. I drive past the Smithson’s Robin Hood Gardens fairly often and muse on this remark. I think he knew that architects were on a ‘hiding to disaster’ but could also understand why they were doing it. As the link notes ‘With many Brutalist buildings, the feeling exists that the needs of expressing an architectural ideal comes before the needs of the human beings who have to use them. By the time the backlash against Modernism was in full swing in the 1970s, Brutalist buildings often bore the brunt of the criticism.’ I also pass a Brutalist office block designed by Ernő Goldfinger (now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Central_Heights ) and am myself amused that in converting it to residential use and curing the sick buildings syndrome it had (when serving as the HQ of the National Health Service!) they decided to apply white paint to the Brutalist concrete. This made it look better and it is now ‘luxury apartments’.

Greenery is a wonderful foil for architecture good and bad. It is certainly true modernist architecture would have been more popular if “combined with soft, lush and beautiful materials”. Perhaps the popularity of modern architecture is directly proportionate to its use of “soft, lush and beautiful materials.” (ie. California modern, Minimalism etc).

I definitely agree “bad materials can made a good design bad (or less worthy) BUT that good materials cannot made a bad design good (or more worthy).”

The Homewood and the Barcelona Pavilion are distinghuished by their excellent use of excellent materials. Much of the best modern design in the UK was spoiled by an ideological taste for raw concrete which, especially when badly detailed, soon looks terrible in a wet climate. Occasional greening initiatives in London have shown how much more popular modernist architecture might have been if combined with soft, lush and beautiful materials http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2008/07/15/towards-a-greener-london/ But it is of course that no amout of marble or gold can save a bad design. Perhaps we should say that bad materials can make a good design bad BUT that good materials cannot make a bad design good.

I am a great admirer of the Barcelona Pavilion and count among its virtues the design idea, the relationship of inside:outside and the materials.
But I do not follow your point about the standard by which architectural quality is judged – surely it has to include the quality/durability/appearance of the materials used?

For this reason high quality self-finishing materials were favoured by Modernists, a principle which was continued into Minimalism.

However, materials (and therefore expense) is not the standard by which architectural quality is judged. Rather it is the quality of the idea which takes precedence, with materials having an important role to play in the resolution of the design idea. Including the principle of structural honesty.

Hence Mies Van der Rohe was criticised for the lack of purity of the material resolution of the structural details at Crown Hall. [ http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Crown_Hall.html ]

I don’t know if I am being censored but I could not get the image links to work.
Reyner Banham wrote a book on Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (1960). Here is an interesting visual commentary: http://digitheory.wordpress.com/authors/banham/

So yes, I do think the metaphor was both functional and aesthetic and perhaps going even further possibly becoming more than a metaphor, extending into a philosophy.

I wonder does Foster still dislike the title gerkin? Quite right, that there should be a desire to adopt the least offensive metaphor of those on offer. Regardless of its origins it is a compliment…

Utzon has had to endure many similar jibs…[ http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qTDAEasFLtU/TGkO_MIHbzI/AAAAAAAAHEo/S2xXcN89P0Y/s1600/Sydney%2BOpera%2BHouse%2B006.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2010/08/nuns-scrum.html&usg=__8L5uCU–ixTEz_GIwTdjOc7MfMA=&h=418&w=1000&sz=91&hl=en&start=65&zoom=1&tbnid=-4m9P9vuyHJUKM:&tbnh=62&tbnw=149&ei=8sFgTo-NL4LMmAWQksTVDQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSydney%2BOpera%2BHouse%2Bcartoon%2Bimages%26start%3D63%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1 ]

ps. a flipflop is another name for the thong. [ http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.canoe.ca/2000GamesClosingCeremoniesImages2/parade5_oct1-ap.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.canoe.ca/2000GamesGalleryOct1/ceremonies26.html&usg=__9uV_Elvn6SWbdXEIXq_orMz5kfs=&h=201&w=300&sz=25&hl=en&start=11&zoom=1&tbnid=dabgwEoDQYif7M:&tbnh=78&tbnw=116&ei=w8JgTsbrGe2ImQXytPjiDQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsydney%2Bolympics%2Bflip%2Bflop%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1 ]