Today (20 October) marks 50 years since Queen Elizabeth II opened the Sydney Opera House in 1973. By all accounts, the construction of the Opera House was an unlikely miracle made possible by four premiers, two architects, almost two decades and $102 million (approximately $1 billion in current terms). 

Fifty years in the making

The Opera House was Australia’s first crowd-sourced cultural space, partly funded by the Sydney Opera House Lottery, which raised $102 million (and sold 86.7 million tickets) between 1957 and 1986. Many Australians would be surprised to learn that it was largely funded by gambling. As was the case with Tasmania’s Mona (Museum of Old and New Art), built on founder David Walsh’s winnings in the early 2000s.

The Sydney Opera House has more than 10.9 million visitors every year and makes an annual contribution of $1.2 billion to the Australian economy – not to mention its land and buildings now being valued at $3 billion. The investment has clearly been worthwhile from an economic perspective. The social and cultural benefits are also undeniable, with more than 1800 performances each year and 72% of patrons reporting that visiting it enhanced their well-being (according to recent research conducted by Deloitte).

Today, the Opera House is a national and international icon governed by bespoke legislation and listed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site. It occupies prized harbourfront real estate and recently underwent major upgrades over its Decade of Renewal with support from the NSW Government. Put simply, the Opera House is one of a kind. Its uniqueness is one of its strengths and a driving force behind the 1.8 million international visitors per year. However, its singularity should also raise questions. Why does the Opera House remain an anomaly in the Australian cultural infrastructure landscape? And would it be built today? This is the exact topic debated by a panel of academics and writers at the Playhouse in early October. 

Would the Opera House be built today?

The “Cynics” – the team of debaters arguing that the Opera House would not be built today – focused on bureaucratic barriers. Red tape, focus groups, compliance and risk assessments would blockade the development before it even began. The case was compelling. In today’s social and political climate, the prospect of bipartisan support for a harbourside billion-dollar cultural precinct is almost laughable. Setting aside the threshold issue of agreeing on the development of a precinct in the first place, it is highly unlikely that a playhouse for opera and classical music (designed by a European architect) would be the preferred concept. The Cynics pointed to the interlinking climate change, cost of living and homelessness crises as social issues that would (justifiably) take precedence in today’s polls and government budgets.   

In Benjamin Law’s words, the House is a ‘glorious anomaly’. Law, speaking for the Cynics, praised the Opera House and expressed gratitude for the ‘miraculous one-off [accidents]’ that coalesced to get its development and construction over the line. Law echoed the words of Opera House CEO Louise Herron. In an opinion piece for The Sydney Morning Herald earlier this year, Herron described the Opera House as a ‘succession of miracles’. The Opera House shows us ‘what is possible when a city is prepared to be assertive, not defensive, about its cultural worth’ and what is waiting if we overcome the ‘early sense of scepticism that always attaches itself to new ideas,’ wrote Herron.

More than bricks and mortar

The debate focused on the question of building the Opera House, but running and maintaining a world-class cultural precinct involves much more than construction. It is one thing to green-light a building or renovation; it is another to consider the associated running costs. ‘Like any physical asset … cultural infrastructure needs programmed maintenance, renewal and good management, and that takes resources’ observed former Creative Australia Chairman Rupert Myers in 2013 for ArtsHub.  

Without adequate storage facilities, resources and capital infrastructure, how can staff be expected to keep pace? One example is Geelong Arts Centre, which recently underwent a major expansion. With modest funding from the Victorian Government to support operations and programming during construction (4.5% of the total construction cost), the post-renovation operating budget is largely unchanged. The Opera House is not immune from shortfalls in operational resourcing. Designed to accommodate 60 administrative employees, today the Opera House has 1000 staff and a large number are required to work off-site. 

Investments in cultural infrastructure are often led by local governments. With ‘Strong Cultural Infrastructure’ forming the fourth pillar of the National Cultural Policy ‘Revive‘, it is hoped that the Federal Government will actively encourage intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration with philanthropic entities. Revive may be the ticket to tri-level investment and a detailed understanding of the value of long-term, strategic investment in cultural infrastructure. 

Read: Revive: a second look

In the debate, the “Optimists” (the team arguing that the Opera House would be built today) did not delve into contemporary case studies. However, there are a number of good news stories from which they could have drawn. One example is the redevelopment of Bundanon Art Museum in regional NSW. With support from the state ($10.3 million) and federal ($22 million) governments, Bundanon recently underwent a two-year renovation focusing on disaster-proof and environmentally responsible infrastructure. 

On the flip side, the Cynics unfortunately had a raft of bad news stories at their fingertips. To name a few examples (some of which were raised, while others weren’t):

• The development of Takarri, a Centre for First Nations Cultures, was put on hold by the South Australian Government in 2022 and although the site is currently a hole in the ground and is forecast to be completed by 2027, no additional funds were allocated in the 2023-24 state budget.
• Plans to build an Indigenous Cultural Centre in Brisbane – intended to rival Mona and the Sydney Opera House – are creeping ever so cautiously along. Despite a Strategic Business Case being finalised in 2019 and an Options Analysis being completed in 2020, the Queensland Government has only just appointed a First Nations Project Lead for the development of a Detailed Business Case.
• The Powerhouse Museum – referenced multiple times throughout the debate – has been the subject of eight years of controversial relocation, demolition and development plans under both ALP and LNP Governments.
• In Tasmania, Mona was commissioned to put forward a proposal for the development of Hobart’s waterfront Macquarie Point. However, Mona’s proposed Trust and Reconciliation Art Park has been eclipsed by a proposal for a new AFL stadium costing $715 million.

Interestingly, the Tasmanian Government’s business case for the AFL stadium refers to Mona no fewer than 11 times. In doing so, the case for sports infrastructure inadvertently illustrates Herron’s earlier point about the significance of cultural landmarks.

Read: Minister for the Arts back-pedalling on promises

Although the debate was pessimistically titled ‘The Opera House Would Not Be Built Today’, the Optimists won out in audience opinion. In this impassioned debate on courage, creativity and Australia’s cultural imagination, the verdict was clear: we love our Opera House, and we sure hope it would be built today.

‘The Opera House Would Not Be Built Today’ was debated at the Sydney Opera House on 5 October 2023 by Osman Faruqi, Wendy Harmer, Rebecca Huntley, Benjamin Law, Helen Pitt and Yumi Stynes, hosted by Julia Zemiro.

This article is published under the Amplify Collective, an initiative supported by The Walkley Foundation and made possible through funding from the Meta Australian News Fund.