I’ve watched this cycle play out so many times now that I could set my watch by it. An iconic live music venue closes. There’s an outcry on social media. Politicians make sympathetic noises. A developer announces plans for apartments. And within two years, a room that launched careers and created memories for thousands of people is a car park or a lobby.

We’ve lost too many already. The HiFi Bar in Melbourne. The Annandale Hotel. Goodgod Small Club. The Palace in St Kilda. The list gets longer every year, and each time the community response follows the same pattern of grief, anger, and eventual resignation.

The “agent of change” problem

Several Australian states now have “agent of change” legislation, which was supposed to protect existing venues from noise complaints when new residential developments popped up next door. In theory, it means the developer is responsible for sound insulation, not the venue.

In practice, I’ve seen mixed results. Some developers comply grudgingly. Others tie venues up in legal disputes that achieve the same result as a direct shutdown — death by legal fees. And the legislation doesn’t help when the building itself gets sold to someone who’d rather develop the site than run a music venue.

The fundamental problem is economic. A live music venue on a valuable piece of inner-city land will almost always be worth more as residential or commercial development than as a going concern. Unless we create mechanisms that specifically protect venue spaces, market forces will keep grinding them down.

What heritage listings don’t cover

People often suggest heritage listing as a solution, but heritage protections typically cover the physical building, not its use. You can heritage-list a building and still see it converted from a live music venue to a cocktail bar, a co-working space, or a boutique hotel. The building survives, but the music dies.

What we need is something more like a cultural use designation — a planning mechanism that protects not just the structure but the purpose. A few councils have started exploring this, but it’s piecemeal and inconsistent.

The economic argument nobody makes

Here’s what frustrates me most. Live music venues generate enormous economic activity that extends well beyond their own revenue. The bands that play there spend money on accommodation, food, petrol, and equipment. The audiences spend at nearby restaurants, bars, and transport. The venues create jobs for sound engineers, security staff, bar workers, and managers.

Studies from the UK and the US have consistently shown that the broader economic impact of a live music venue is 5-10 times its direct revenue. But these numbers rarely feature in planning decisions because they’re diffuse and hard to attribute directly.

Australian cities market themselves as cultural destinations while simultaneously allowing the infrastructure of that culture to be demolished. You can’t have a vibrant music scene without the rooms to play in. It’s that simple.

What would actually help

Protection needs to happen at three levels. First, planning laws need to recognise live music venues as cultural infrastructure worthy of specific protection, not just as another commercial use that can be displaced by higher-value development.

Second, there should be genuine financial support for venue operators. Reduced rates, grants for sound insulation and safety upgrades, or density bonuses for developers who include live music spaces in new developments. Melbourne’s Music Spaces program was a decent start, but it needs to be scaled up and replicated nationally.

Third, the live music industry needs to get better at organising politically. The Music Venue Trust in the UK has shown what’s possible when venues band together to advocate for their interests. Australia has some strong advocacy organisations, but the political engagement is still inconsistent.

I’ve spent my career in rooms that felt permanent until they weren’t. Every venue we lose is a space for artists, audiences, and communities that we never get back. The time to act is before the “closing night” announcement, not after.