Notice what all of the faux-brutalist buildings have in common, they all make an attempt to appear stylish or avant-garde, and in doing so, drastically increase the cost and effort to create the building.
Answer me, what function does having the layers of the first building jut outwards and inwards serve? And what does having the layers of the second building unaligned and balancing on the bottom layers serve? And what functionality does making the third building a clusterfuck serve?
I'll answer for you. Stylization. Those design features are only there to make the building look nice or complex.
I wouldn't say these buildings are necessarily unattractive, but they certainly aren't brutalist.
Brutalism prioritizes cost and functionality over form and aesthetics, but these buildings are violating those tenets. So I don't think these are fair examples to provide when discussing brutalism. These are more contemporary than anything.
I would say true-brutalism is industrial in nature, because the buildings are meant to serve a function over everything else. You don't see industrial structures being stylized like the faux-brutalist examples.
Back to what I was saying about TRYING to appear "avant-garde." The keyword there is "trying." The avant-garde appearance is something that true-brutalism achieves without putting in any aesthetic design choices. True brutalist buildings are inherently avant-garde, because they exist outside of the expected stylization that comes with architecture, there is no effort made to make the building appear stylish. But in faux-brutalism, the avant-garde nature comes from an intention, it is trying to capture what true brutalism achieves effortlessly. There is functional avant-garde, then there is non-functional avant-garde, that is, avant-garde FOR THE SAKE OF being avant-garde.
Once you start wasting time and money by figuring out how to arrange the concrete blocks in a way that is appealing to the eye, while ignoring the functionality (or lack thereof) of the choices that you're making, you have left the territory of brutalism and have entered the territory of contemporary architecture.
Not saying I don't like the first three buildings, but if I said I liked brutalism, there would be no way in hell I would present those buildings as examples (and people actually do! LOL!)
The CIA couldn't torture or drug me into presenting those buildings as brutalist.
But I would be ecstatic to present the last three, because those are true brutalist buildings that actually follow the philosophy of brutalism.
This is just to say that when people say they like brutalism, they are, oftentimes, presenting incorrect examples.