I think it's a good example of a style I don't much like.
It reads as commentary on architecture and lifestyle, and a nicely ambiguous way. It's pretty strongly graphical, but for me it's more about the content and the actual things it is showing me than about the way the frame is organized. The frame is ok, but the "failings" in it serve the commentary: the frame is top-heavy, brutalist, a bit off-kilter and crude. Just like the buildings and lives it's talking about.
I might be overthinking it, but that's sort of the point of critique, innit?