The Architecture of Culture

In a time of rapid economic, social, and environmental change, cities and cultural institutions alike are grappling with shifting roles. They can no longer be ivory-tower repositories of art or mere stages for performance; at their best, they are dynamic reflections of the societies they serve. The expectation that they function solely as containers for creative work is outdated; instead, they must take on a broader role—building community, asserting civic identity, and engaging in an architectural discourse that is both historically conscious and attuned to contemporary upheaval.

The Evolution of Cultural Centres

There was a time when cultural institutions were temples of high culture—aloof, imposing, snobbish behind their marble fa?ades. That model, once a given, I hope is now unthinkable. Culture can’t be confined or so easily codified with monocular certainty; it pulses through digital spaces, spills onto the streets, and defies institutional ownership. To remain relevant, cultural centres must not merely house culture but enable its organic evolution.

The ‘beautiful room’—which ARM founder Ian McDougall discussed in Geelong Arts Centre: Directions for 21st Century Arts Centres—is having a resurgence after a long period in which ‘flexibility’ became an excuse for bland architectural instrumentality. We are now seeing new spaces that reject anonymity in favour of emotional resonance and site-specific meaning.

At its best, cultural architecture is more than a matter of aesthetics or function—it is a form of civic generosity. A great cultural building is not a landmark that exists merely as an architectural curiosity but a place that becomes embedded in the city’s collective memory, shaping its identity and public consciousness.

Reconciliation and Decolonisation

Cultural institutions are not neutral. They are complicit in the stories they tell and, just as crucially, the ones they omit. Nowhere is this more evident than in Australia, where museums and galleries have historically served as instruments of colonialism, curating narratives that often marginalise Indigenous voices.

Historian and activist Gary Foley has long challenged these institutions to reckon with their own complicity. He argues that museums continue to function as colonial institutions, reinforcing narratives that marginalise Indigenous perspectives and perpetuate the dispossession of Aboriginal people.

In Goori Reader No.1: History, Memory and the Role of Cultural Organisations in Entrenching Colonisation in Australia and Beyond, Foley details how museums continue to control and display Indigenous cultural materials, human remains, and artefacts without properly addressing issues of sovereignty, ownership, and self-determination. He has criticised the way many institutions curate Indigenous histories through a Eurocentric lens, often presenting Aboriginal culture as something of the past.

The question is no longer whether to change, but how radically and how swiftly.

The cultural space of the future must be more than a stage for reconciliation; it must embody it. This demands more than acknowledgement plaques and curated tokenism. It requires Indigenous-led programming, governance structures that reflect the communities they serve, and an architectural framework that makes room—both symbolically and literally—for Indigenous cultural protocols. There are moments when design and designers must step forward, and others when they must yield.

Architecture for a Multicultural Society

Australia’s cultural landscape is pluralistic, yet too often, its institutions remain rooted in singular traditions. The challenge is no longer simply to accommodate diversity but to embed it into the very DNA of cultural space. This is as much an architectural question as a curatorial one. What does a cultural institution look like in a city where multiple traditions shape public life? How do we design spaces that encourage communal gathering without alienating those who seek quiet contemplation? Can a building simultaneously house exuberance and introspection, ritual and improvisation?

True inclusivity requires dismantling assumptions. A ‘neutral’ space may, in fact, be coded with cultural biases. Architecture that presumes universality risks exclusion. Modernist architects such as Alvar Aalto recognised this, Robert Venturi and later Postmodernists addressed the issue directly, but today’s designers must see it as a shared contemporary condition—the air we breathe! Thoughtful design considers everything from spatial arrangements that respect cultural norms around modesty and gender to material choices that support neurodiverse visitors. Empathetic architecture does not prescribe interaction—it anticipates multiplicity.

Flexibility, but with Intent

For too long, flexibility in cultural design has been a euphemism for generic adaptability—the ubiquitous ‘black box’ that can be anything and, consequently, means nothing. True adaptability is not an afterthought; it is embedded in the design’s very logic.

ARM Architecture has consistently demonstrated this philosophy. Our work at the Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre—developed with Schuler Shook , Randall Arts Management, and Slattery —rejects the one-size-fits-all model in favour of a space meticulously calibrated to support a sustainable arts ecosystem. Successful cultural spaces are not passive hosts; they are active participants in the cultural economy, designed with a forensic understanding of audience behaviour, touring circuits, and community needs. It is not enough to recite ‘build it and they will come’—spaces must be rigorously designed to ensure they do.

Projects such as St Leonard’s College and the Sydney Opera House illustrate the nuanced approach required for different contexts. A school theatre must prioritise safety and ease of use, while a leading-edge venue for professional performance demands sophisticated technological integration, efficiency, and accessibility.

Sustainability: The Unfinished Business of Cultural Infrastructure

Cultural institutions have, for the most part, been slow to reckon with their environmental footprint. Traditional galleries and theatres are energy-intensive, relying on stringent climate control standards, elaborate lighting schemes, and vast operational infrastructures. As the urgency of climate change accelerates, cultural architecture must do more than pay lip service to sustainability.

The sacred conventions of cultural preservation—such as strict temperature and humidity controls for touring exhibitions—must be re-examined in light of environmental imperatives. We have undertaken our own research into these systems, working with City of Gold Coast at HOTA, Home of the Arts to assess current standards and identify future-focused practices that are kinder to the environment. ARM’s work explores how cultural buildings can integrate passive design strategies, modular event spaces, and adaptive climate control systems to reduce their carbon footprint. The future of cultural architecture is one where environmental responsibility is not an afterthought but a foundational principle.

Cultural Economics and the Art of Sustainability

The argument for cultural investment is often framed in economic terms—and for good reason. Arts infrastructure fuels urban economies, drives tourism, and supports local businesses. But economic viability cannot be left to chance. Sustainable cultural institutions require not only artistic vision but also economic intelligence.

ARM’s collaboration with economic consultants ensures that its projects are as financially sustainable as they are architecturally ambitious. The Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre, for example, has been designed to accommodate both grassroots community productions and major touring performances, balancing artistic vitality with commercial pragmatism. Similar principles underpin the Gold Coast’s Home of the Arts (HOTA), a model for how cultural precincts can function as both civic assets and economic drivers.

Technology and the Cultural Experience

The cultural spaces of tomorrow will be shaped as much by digital innovation as by brick and mortar. The challenge is to integrate technology in ways that enhance, rather than overshadow, human experience. Theatres, galleries, and museums must embrace virtual reality, AI-driven curation, and immersive digital storytelling—but not at the cost of intimacy.

The success of Sydney Theatre Company The Picture of Dorian Gray (adapted and directed by Kip Williams) was not simply its technological virtuosity but its ability to deepen engagement rather than distract from it. This is the litmus test for all digital interventions in cultural architecture.

The Future

The cultural centre of the future will be many things at once—part theatre, part gathering space, part digital portal, part economic hub. It will be flexible but never anonymous, inclusive but never generic, ambitious but never indulgent. This ethos drives ARM Architecture’s work, from the Melbourne Recital Centre to the Adelaide Festival Plaza. Each project explores how architecture can shape cultural expression, urban identity, and public life.

Designing an arts centre is not the same as designing infrastructure (though we often call it ‘cultural infrastructure’). It is about creating a space where a city understands itself, where a culture finds its voice, where a community rehearses its aspirations. The best cultural architecture does not impose meaning; it provides the framework upon which meaning emerges.