Cultural Sensitivity and Social Well-Being in Embassy Architecture: Educational Approaches and Design Strategies

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the expanding environmental and ecological crises highlight the need to broaden the concept of sustainability to encompass support for cultural sensitivity and social well-being. This study explores the role of architectural education in fostering cultural sensitivity and social well-being in embassy architecture within a framework of environment–behavior studies. It starts from the premise that the architectural values of a culture are deeply rooted in the relationship between the users, architecture, and surrounding environment. State-sponsored architectural works (e.g., embassies, consulates, cultural centers) built outside the country are viewed as symbolic representations of a nation’s diplomatic and cultural influence. These architectural typologies hold a unique potential to act as bridges for cross-cultural dialogue and foster a collective sense of global citizenship. In order to develop and assess the teaching curriculum, a specific assignment was given to master’s students of the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, with the aim to explore how engineering education can be adopted to motivate students toward sustainable attitudes and design solutions. While traditional diplomatic architecture emphasizes inward-facing, fortress-like design strategies, establishing physical and symbolic barriers between the embassy’s territory and the surrounding context, this research advocates for a more holistic approach oriented toward cultural sustainability, openness, and integration within an urban context. Key findings highlight creative solutions for balancing cultural representation with functional requirements while prioritizing community engagement, environmental responsibility, and user well-being. By demonstrating the two distinctive architectural strategies, this study contributes to the culturally responsive embassy design within the broader context of sustainable architectural education.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Context and Framework

Sustainable approaches in architecture have become exceedingly relevant as the world increasingly recognizes the importance of environmental conservation and resource efficiency. Contemporary architecture is dynamically evolving by striving to minimize the ecological footprint and enhance energy efficiency and resilience. This shift responds to the pressing climate crisis and reflects a broader cultural shift towards sustainability as a society’s fundamental value. In architectural education, new curricula that address sustainable design principles have been introduced widely; these programs aim to equip students with the necessary knowledge and skills in order to be competitive and socially responsible. Courses now frequently cover topics such as eco-friendly building materials, alternative energy solutions, and sustainable city planning, reflecting the industry’s move towards more sustainable practices. Despite these advancements, implementing sustainable principles in architectural curricula is still insufficient [1], particularly when it comes to cultural sustainability issues. Cultural sustainability involves the preservation and integration of local cultural practices, traditions, and values into the design, enhancing the cultural heritage and community values [2]. A comprehensive and systematic approach to widely teaching cultural sustainability in architecture schools remains lacking. This inclusive approach to sustainability is essential for fostering resilient communities that can harmoniously coexist with their natural and cultural environments. The European Commission published a report in 2022, “Stormy Times. Nature and humans: cultural courage for change”, that emphasizes the essential role that culture has as leverage for sustainable development [3] and follows up on the outcomes of UNESCO’s MONDIACULT 2022 conference [4], which advocates for recognizing culture as a distinct goal in the forthcoming United Nations Development Goals.

In line with the EU 2030 sustainable strategy, education must be seen as indispensable to creating a culture of sustainability [5]. In architectural education, the focus on sustainability is shifting from technical solutions to concepts of healthy living by introducing new eco-cultural challenges. Promoting responsibility and awareness as a creative process is an essential aspect of finding a sustainable architectural approach [6,7]. Additionally, the Eurydice report on “Learning for Sustainability in Europe” addresses the importance of whole-school approaches to sustainability, which includes cultural dimensions to ensure a holistic and inclusive approach to sustainable education [8].

This study seeks to identify relevant criteria for architectural design, in which cultural sustainability is strengthened by enhancing cultural sensitivity and social well-being from a framework of environment–behavior studies (EBSs). Much of the existing literature on traditional embassy design has focused on formal aesthetic expression or security considerations, neglecting the social and environmental dimensions essential for sustainable outcomes. However, these approaches to embassy design have often created isolated, introverted structures that are disconnected from their surroundings. In contrast, this study advocates for a broader interpretation of sustainability that considers the surrounding community’s multi-faceted needs and embodies the represented nation’s cultural values. This study highlights the complexities of researching, coding, and transplanting cultural identities and giving them spatial manifestation within an academic setting, with a specific focus on cultural sustainability, understood in the context of sustainable development practices [9]. It forms an intricate structure intertwined with various narratives, including ideological, political, and cultural dimensions. Diplomatic buildings are purposefully designed to enhance relations between the sending and receiving states, promoting sustainable cultural exchange and striving for integration within their urban settings [10,11].

Through guided Research by Design methodologies [12], the discrepancies between identities for various target audiences were examined, influencing the architectural designs. Students had the freedom to explore, interpret, and define their architectural briefs and frameworks within the urban context of Belgrade, Serbia.

The overall objective of the research is to advocate for the integration of cultural sustainability at the Concept Design Phase of the architectural design process, positioning it as a cornerstone of conceptual thinking [13]. This approach extends beyond mere technical requirements to make sustainability the primary principle guiding the design of new buildings. The promotion of sustainability values highlights the need for a holistic approach and becomes vital for architects’ education and practice [6,14,15].

This study’s specific objective focuses on the role of architectural education in fostering cultural sensitivity and social well-being in embassy architecture from a framework of environment–behavior studies. This approach fosters a new generation of architects who are not only technically proficient and dedicated to design excellence but also deeply committed to the articulation of complex topics in the field of cultural sustainability. This approach ensures that future architects are well equipped to address sustainability challenges within the architectural field.

To achieve these two objectives, two specific research questions emerge:

• What are the challenges and opportunities in enhancing cultural sensitivity and social well-being in embassy architecture?
• What are the main insights for educational approaches in design studios, and which design strategies can be applied?

The studio design project introduced various topics, texts, and design projects within the Master’s architecture syllabus over an academic semester. This comprehensive approach aimed to provide students with a theoretical and practical foundation, culminating in refined hypotheses (Master Thesis) and designs (Master Studio Design). The objective was for students to conceptualize and spatially interpret imported cultural, social, and spatial identities, emphasizing the role of cultural sustainability.

1.2. Paper Outline

This study’s narrative is developed through distinctive sections:

• Theoretical Background: This section broadly discusses cultural sustainability, emphasizing cultural sensitivity and social well-being. It discusses implications for the built environment from a framework of environment–behavior studies, conceptualizing relationships between users, architecture, and the surrounding environment.
• Methodological Framework: This section consists of an explanation of the research methodology.
• Findings and Discussion: This section examines the key research insights derived from the research. It explores challenges and notable points of interest identified in the results of the particular assignment given to master’s students of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Belgrade. Limitations and future challenges are discussed, offering insight into researchable scenarios for other related theoretical and practical investigations.
• Conclusion: The concluding remarks emphasize the importance of enhancing cultural sensitivity and social well-being within architectural education and embassy design practice. The opportunities and threats are highlighted.

The key findings of this study highlight the necessity of introducing holistic design strategies in the architectural design of embassies.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Cultural Sustainability: Current Perspectives and Challenges

The primary purpose of this research is to identify the gaps currently present in the ongoing scholarly discussions on cultural sustainability and to subsequently introduce EBS as a framework for the evaluation of design proposals.

Soini and Birkeland [16] provide a comprehensive exploration of the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. They trace the concept of sustainable development back to the 1987 Brundtland Commission’s report “Our Common Future”, which defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [17]. Since then, sustainable development has been widely used in research and policy, becoming a part of educational programs and gaining recognition among the general public [16]. Due to the concept’s multi-interpretability, many stakeholders may refer to it [18]. Sustainable development is often considered to consist of ecological, economic, and social dimensions, or ‘pillars’ [19,20]. In the policy field, culture has been mentioned as an aspect of social sustainability and occasionally even as an aspect or dimension of its own [16]. It can be argued that culture is not yet institutionalized as an aspect of sustainability because it has not been systematically included in sustainable development policies, practices, or assessments compared to ecological, economic, and social sustainability [16]. Consequently, international, national, regional, and local policies aimed at sustainable development often examine the cultural dimension as part of the social one or completely ignore it [21].

By expanding the field of cultural sustainability, it was introduced as a fourth pillar of sustainability [22]. Further development followed with more expanded fields of cultural sustainability, introducing the interconnection of culture with other aspects of sustainable development, such as economy, ecology or community development, and housing [21,23,24,25]. By making the obvious semantic connection between ‘culture’ and ‘sustainability’, a path has been laid to make sense of sustainable development through the lens of culture [16]. Chiu [21] shows that in the case of housing, the social and cultural dimensions of sustainability are interlinked, explicitly addressing the connection between culture and its spatial manifestations. The scientific discourse on cultural sustainability is not a “singular” discourse [16], and it is deeply integrated into its social context.

One interesting example rooted in the spatial realm is the question of how to balance so-called traditional and contemporary forms of material cultures, such as in urban development when new architecture develops in proximity to old buildings, bringing visual and aesthetic issues to this storyline. Artists are often seen as actors who transmit various forms of cultural capital (such as heritage), and the role, income, and intellectual property rights of artists are also discussed [26]. However, the key question concerning sustainability is how change can take place in a way that does not damage the cultural continuity or identity of cultural capital and that promotes social inclusion and the sharing of cultural capital. Furthermore, the overarching ambition is to educate various professionals on the finer points of cultural sustainability to avoid the potential flattening of cultural differences present as a byproduct of globalization. Although globalization is often seen as leading to the homogenization of culture and threatening authentic local culture, particularly in the heritage storyline, this storyline focuses on the possibilities for creating sustainable small-scale production–consumption relationships [16].

Current broad scholarly discussions on cultural sustainability identify the lack of interdisciplinary integration, measurement and indicators, policy implementation, community engagement, theoretical frameworks, education and awareness, funding and resources, and balancing global and local perspectives. Contemporary scholarly research [16,27,28] demonstrates a notable literature gap regarding architectural studies that address investigative approaches to cultural sustainability. Heritage and cultural vitality should be recognized as a fourth pillar of sustainability, alongside ecological, social, and economic sustainability [16]. A key issue is that culture, in its diverse forms, must be sustained. When considering sustainable development, cultural aspects must be considered in addition to the economic, social, and ecological dimensions.

2.1.1. Environment–Behavior Studies as a Framework for Culturally Sustainable Architecture

EBSs offer a promising framework for enhancing cultural sustainability within the embassy design process. This field emphasizes the interdependence of environmental and socio-cultural systems, focusing primarily on both environmental and human factors. This framework prioritizes understanding local communities’ diverse needs, values, and lived experiences, enabling designers to create buildings responsive to their social and cultural contexts. It is crucial to recognize that context, e.g., geopolitical, spatial, architectural, and urban, plays a vital role in design decisions. EBSs provide an empirically grounded understanding of the reciprocal interactions between individuals, social groups, cultures, and the environments in which they live. These studies examine the interactions between different user groups and their surroundings across various spatial scales while also considering diverse socio-behavioral phenomena (see Figure 1) with the aim of improving spatial quality and identity [29].

Spatial articulations cannot be detached from their contexts and examined independently. A foundational step in understanding the connection between social well-being and environmental issues (including ecological, economic, and social aspects) is to explore environment–behavior relations as a basis for this understanding. Moreover, even when analyzed as specific contextual ‘snapshots’ [30], an extensive network of information is required to extract relevant conclusions. The idea that space should cater to its occupants’ needs, values, and behaviors is deeply embedded in the core of the EBS framework. The framework for examining the range of available environment–behavior information was first introduced by psychologist Irwin Altman and consists of three key elements: behavioral phenomena and concepts, user groups, and places or settings [31].

Figure 1. EBS as the investigation of the reciprocal interactions among places, user groups, and socio-behavioral–cultural phenomena, according to Moore [32].

Figure 1. EBS as the investigation of the reciprocal interactions among places, user groups, and socio-behavioral–cultural phenomena, according to Moore [32].

EBSs emphasize the central role of users in the design process while respecting and incorporating the community’s cultural context. This makes it an ideal framework for ensuring that buildings, especially those in cross-cultural settings, are not only functional and aesthetically pleasing but also culturally sensitive and inclusive. In culturally diverse settings, such as embassies, this approach can ensure that the design respects the cultural norms and practices of both the host nation and the represented country. Culturally responsive architecture seeks to create environments where all users feel a sense of belonging and comfort. An increasing amount of research indicates that integrating cultural and emotional factors into architectural design can enhance social well-being and promote a more sustainable approach [33].

2.1.2. Cultural Sensitivity and Social Well-Being as Design Drivers

The identity is constructed with specific cultural contents and symbols but always related to a particular context. This signifies that identity is not a rigidly defined accumulation of “cultural materials” and “contents”, features, or characteristics but, rather, strategies for establishing differences from another identity. These differences are highlighted by emphasizing specific segments, rather than all aspects, of the culture of particular ethnic, national, or other relevant groups. In this interpretation, culture can be understood as defined by Geertz, as a symbolic signifying context that enables the understanding of situations or goings-on or as a type of interaction and the context of said interaction. Geertz described culture as “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms through which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” [34]. Iriye articulated similar views [35], defining culture as “structures of meaning”, including “memory, ideology, emotions, lifestyles, scholarly and artistic works”. This signifies that identity does not form and develop outside of culture but rather is constructed depending on political, economic, and cultural mechanisms in place within a certain community [36].

An overwhelming challenge in identity research lies in the fact that every identity is, in a sense, a construct of the scholar investigating its incidence. In point of fact, identity is not an inherent characteristic of a community (which possesses varied and complex modes of identification) but a theoretical analysis tool to be utilized in order to enhance knowledge or the confirmation of certain ideological, political, or other ideas. This does not mean, however, that identities are only and simply analytical constructions of researchers, not testifying on societal relations, culture, and politics [37]. Sociological theories, among other postulations, insist on identity as a process rather than a condition, emphasizing the importance of collective self-identification and identification of others through the system of culture as the “grammar of social life” [38].

According to Korez-Vide [39], culture is an ideal medium for public diplomacy due to its ability to reach broad audiences and influence public perceptions, enhancing a country’s reputation by fostering a deeper understanding of its values and societal ethos [40]. This cultural dimension is intrinsic and irreplaceable, reflecting the spiritual and intellectual essence of a nation [39]. Culture includes the practices that bring meaning to society. Culture’s role lies in its capacity to present diverse viewpoints and challenge persistent national stereotypes, thereby reshaping international perceptions, especially in times of reputational challenge [41].

To address these challenges, architectural education and practice must adopt a more holistic approach that prioritizes cultural sensitivity and social well-being as core design drivers. Architecture profoundly influences our well-being, as most of the world’s population spends a significant portion of their time in buildings and urban spaces [33]. This involves not only considering the multisensory experience of a space but also recognizing and incorporating the cultural values and emotional needs of the communities they serve. Ultimately, by embracing a more culturally sensitive and socially conscious design philosophy, architects and urban planners can create spaces that not only meet the practical needs of their users but also contribute to the overall well-being and sustainability of the built environment [42].

In contemporary architectural practice, cultural sensitivity and social well-being have emerged as critical design drivers, especially in projects situated within cross-cultural or diplomatically significant contexts, such as embassy buildings. These factors not only reflect the values and identity of the commissioning nation but also influence the well-being of the individuals who interact with the space. Recognizing the role of cultural diversity and social cohesion in fostering inclusive environments, architects are increasingly integrating these principles to create spaces that both respect the local cultural context and support the physical, emotional, and social needs of the users [43].

Cultural sensitivity in design involves carefully considering local traditions, customs, and values to ensure that the architecture aligns with the cultural context of the host community. In the context of embassy buildings, this may be reflected through using locally sourced materials, incorporating traditional design elements, or creating spaces for cultural exchange. By embracing these aspects, architects pay tribute to the host country’s heritage and foster a sense of respect and belonging, which can strengthen diplomatic ties and encourage community integration. When cultural sensitivity is a guiding principle in design, it goes beyond superficial aesthetics and delves into the architecture’s more profound historical, cultural, and symbolic significance.

In tandem with cultural sensitivity, social well-being plays a pivotal role in shaping the functionality and experience of the built environment. Social well-being refers to the design’s capacity to foster healthy interactions, promote inclusivity, and enhance users’ overall quality of life. Embassy buildings, for instance, can serve as sites for cultural diplomacy, where spaces for public engagement, events, and exhibitions promote cross-cultural dialogue. A well-designed space considering users’ psychological and social needs can help build community, reduce social isolation, and encourage positive social interactions. The presence of accessible, flexible spaces that can accommodate various social functions is often a key indicator of how well the design promotes social well-being. In this context, well-being is understood as a social concept that extends beyond the psychological dimensions of an individual or group [44]. It is important to emphasize that well-being is a multidimensional concept that varies across spatial and temporal dimensions, shifting over time, place, and culture. As Nocca points out, viewing cultural heritage as a shared asset means that any efforts to preserve or enhance it can generate positive outcomes for the surrounding community [45].

2.2. Diplomatic Architecture: From Introversion to Integration

Nations utilize architecture’s communicative power to share their identities globally, promoting dialogue, cooperation, and cultural preservation. Embassies and cultural centers can serve as platforms for showcasing a nation’s cultural heritage and promoting cross-cultural dialogue [46]. Within this comprehensive framework, nations project their image and values on the global stage. Embassy buildings, in particular, should not be viewed as a standalone artefact deposited in the urban fabric but as an amalgamation of processes taking physical form that will, in turn, influence both the tangible and intangible aspects vis-à-vis short and long-term goals in the environments where placed. This dynamic interplay between tradition and modernity must be carefully addressed in the design of state-sponsored architectural works like embassies.

In the cultural context of embassy construction, creating a grand and impressive structure was often an effective way to convey power and prestige. Historically, US embassies worldwide exemplify extreme spatial manifestations of power, and their showcases of supremacy often give desired outcomes [47,48]. However, such approaches are now outdated, as their spatial impacts have been found to be harmful to cities and their residents [49]. Similarly, buildings that exhibit ‘cultural imperialism’ have also been rejected, as their designs negatively affect public perception and undermine long-term public diplomacy goals [50].

One of the most apparent examples of understanding the power and influence of architecture in the foreign built environment is the Standard Embassy Design [SED] promoted by the Government of the United States. The American Institute of Architects stated that “Diplomatic facilities abroad are more than just offices, residences, and places of assembly and refuge. They are the physical presence of the United States beyond its borders. U.S. embassies are symbols of the values and aspirations of the American people” [51]. The importance of architecture beyond a simple building is likewise recognized: “Embassies and consulates serve as the front door for US diplomacy. The safety and security they provide to our personnel are the first priority, but they must also reflect our national values of openness and ingenuity. Embassies and consulates must exemplify the best of American architecture, environmental stewardship, and innovation” [52]. Standard Embassy Design recognizes the importance of funding and design attention as an architectural tool of cultural diplomacy: “The SED consists of three prototype designs of varying size that serves as a starting point for the design of embassies and consulates in places such as Cape Town, South Africa, or Tashkent, Uzbekistan—places that do not typically receive the same level of design attention and funding as embassies in major world capitals such as Beijing, London, or Paris”.

Embassies have traditionally been designed with an inward-facing, fortress-like approach, establishing physical and symbolic barriers between the embassy’s territory and the surrounding context. This defensive style of architecture, characterized by high walls, limited access, and a feeling of seclusion, was primarily driven by the need for security and protection. Although these factors remain important today, the function of diplomatic architecture has shifted, moving from an emphasis on exclusion to a focus on integration. These buildings frequently projected an air of detachment and inaccessibility, which, though practical, reinforced the perception of embassies as isolated foreign entities, disconnected from the surrounding local community. This design approach cultivated the view of diplomatic spaces as secluded enclaves within the city, rather than as areas promoting dialogue and cultural exchange.

However, contemporary diplomatic architecture is moving toward a more integrated and open model. This transformation is motivated by the understanding that embassies serve not only as sites for diplomacy but also as symbols of cultural exchange and collaboration [53]. Contemporary embassy designs strive to strike a balance between maintaining security and fostering openness, creating secure and inviting environments. This shift reflects a growing awareness that diplomacy extends beyond private meetings, encompassing public interactions, cultural events, and active community involvement. Embassies today are being designed to embody the values and aesthetics of both the host country and the visiting nation. Incorporating public spaces like cultural centers, galleries, or event venues within embassy grounds promotes engagement between local residents and the embassy, turning these buildings into hubs of interaction and exchange rather than places of seclusion. This change highlights the growing recognition that embassies are not only secure sites for diplomatic work but also serve as symbols of collaboration, cultural exchange, and community involvement [54]. By finding a balance between security and openness, and incorporating cultural elements into their design, modern embassies are evolving beyond fortified spaces to become vital parts of the communities they inhabit.

3. Methodological Framework

3.1. Research Design

The proposed methodology integrates Research by Design in the first phase, followed by Qualitative Data Analysis in the second phase [55]. In line with this, the first phase is focused on the research by design of embassy architecture within the design studio environment, while the second is focused on evaluating design proposals and detecting possible design strategies for enhancing cultural sensitivity and social well-being.

3.1.1. First Phase—Research by Design of Embassy Architecture

This research phase was carried out in a studio-based environment, where various concepts were investigated within a specified thematic framework of embassy architecture. The research was conducted as part of this study unit, “Master Design Project”, which was attended by eight master’s students. The final part of this study program assumes work at the highest and most complex level of master’s studies: research and synthesis. Master of Architecture (the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Architecture) is a two-year program (120 ECTS) accredited by NEAQA (the National Entity for Accreditation and Quality Assurance in Higher Education) and validated for RIBA Part 2. After finishing the program, students receive the designation of Master Engineer of Architecture (M.Arch). Master Thesis and Master Studio Design Projects make a whole that represents a Master Design Project. The student’s projects demonstrate the successful combination of all their knowledge and skills, showing their expertise in conducting research, coming up with concepts, designing, and bringing to life intricate urban or architectural urban entities. The mentor assigns a thematic and spatial framework for the Master Thesis, requiring students to research the context and develop specific aspects of the project brief based on this framework. Simultaneously, an intensive five-week theoretical research module titled “Thematic Investigation” was conducted at the end of the Fall semester. Drawing upon previous students’ experiences, this module set the parameters for their theoretical inquiry in preparation for their Master Thesis, which will be submitted alongside their graduate Master Studio Design project. The course curriculum “Architectural Identities: Cultural Export” was built upon previously researched theoretical background, adding complexity to the embassy typology and expectations. The topic was conceptualized and developed by employing theoretical and architectural design investigation during the Spring semester within the co-mentoring team of Associate Professor Vladimir Milenković, Ph.D., and Assistant Professor Verica Krstić, Ph.D. The final Studio Design Critique and Evaluation in July were conducted with Committee Members that included: Full Professor Vesna Cagić Milošević, architect (ex officio member as Head of Department); Full Professor Ivan Rašković, architect (ex officio member as Coordinator of Master Studio Design Program); Full Professor Nenad Šekularac, Ph.D. (Architectural Technologies Guest Critic); and Assistant Professor Ivica Nikolić, Ph.D. (Urbanism Guest Critic). Studio work was supported by Ivan Filipović, Ph.D., Graduate Teaching Assistant.

The spatial context for the development of the design solutions of this research was the city of Belgrade, where the task was to design embassies for various foreign countries. In all scenarios, Serbia was the receiving country, meaning that the architectural proposals had to reflect not only the cultural identity of the foreign nations but also integrate harmoniously within the local context of Belgrade.

This course aims to provide Master’s architecture students with the competencies to navigate the complex interplay between architectural design and socio-cultural contexts within a sustainable discourse. To do so, the primary method employed to explore said themes was Research by Design, as defined by Hauberg [12]. Research by design begins with establishing philosophical, ethical, and theoretical norms and values regarding the surrounding world, the role of architecture, and the architectural object itself [12]. It is employed as an approach to assessing theoretical and practical questions by creating spaces and structures. Anchoring sustainability principles within the conceptual phases of the design process empowers sustainability as the guiding principle of the entire education process. Teaching students these theoretical frameworks ensures that understanding architecture’s socio-political dimensions informs their design work. Traditionally, architectural education at the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Architecture, is considered engineering education that, in addition to technical aspects, strongly includes and integrates building design’s artistic, aesthetic, and functional characteristics. Completion of both undergraduate and graduate studies diplomas at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, grants the students the title “Engineer of Architecture” (B.Arch) and “Master Engineer of Architecture” (M.Arch).

Table 1. Studio work methodology table.

Phase	Input	Activities	Output	Transition Mechanism
Investigation	Existing examples of diplomatic architecture	Analysis, criticism, problem formulation	Contextual analysis, understanding of national identity representation	Guided Research by Design methodologies
Problem Definition	Research insights, contextual analysis	Defining specific problems, setting assignments and goals	Strategic research plans, actionable design briefs	Strategic planning, conceptualization
Proposals	Strategic plans, theoretical insights	Developing spatial solutions, iterative design processes	Design proposals, conceptual spatial layouts	Creative experimentation, iterative design
Rationalization	Design proposals, feedback	Articulation of theoretical underpinnings, testing, and refining designs	Refined design proposals, comprehensive theoretical analysis	Continuous improvement, theoretical-practical alignment

outlines the methodology used in the studio work, broken into four phases: Investigation, Problem Definition, Proposals, and Rationalization. Each phase involves specific inputs, activities, outputs, and transition mechanisms. This phase ensures that students develop a subtle understanding of the complexities of designing for internal and external audiences.

(1)

In the Investigation Phase, outputs include contextual analysis and understanding of national identity representation. This involves examining examples of diplomatic architecture to identify patterns and understand how architectural elements express cultural, historical, and social identities to understand its operational dynamics within various socio-political contexts.

(2)

The Problem Definition Phase produces strategic research plans and actionable design briefs. These outline research directions, objectives, and methodologies, serving as a roadmap for achieving goals related to cultural sustainability. Design briefs translate research findings into specific design challenges. Following the investigative phase, students define specific problems and set partial assignments and goals within an overall program [12]. This phase is crucial as it translates theoretical insights into actionable design briefs, setting the stage for innovative architectural interventions [56]. By emphasizing strategic planning, students learn to conceptualize and spatially interpret imported cultural, social, and spatial identities in sustainable environments.

(3)

The Proposals Phase generates design proposals and conceptual spatial layouts. Initial solutions are presented as sketches, drawings, or models, refined iteratively through feedback. Conceptual layouts visualize designs in context, aiding in understanding their spatial implications. The concrete spatial solutions respond to the defined program [12]. This experimental phase allows students to explore innovative design solutions reflecting the sending country’s cultural identities. Through iterative design processes, students create proposals that challenge traditional notions of diplomatic architecture, often characterized by insularity and fortification. Instead, they design spaces that emphasize transparency, openness, and integration within the urban fabric. This phase underscores the critical role of creative experimentation in architectural design, allowing students to push the boundaries of conventional practice.

(4)

The Rationalization Phase, as the final phase, involves the rationalization of design proposals, where students articulate the theoretical underpinnings of their designs and argue for their validity [12]. They align theoretical concepts with practical design solutions incorporating principles of cultural sustainability. This phase ensures that the designs are aesthetically and functionally sound and backed up by comprehensive theoretical analysis. The iterative nature of this phase allows for continuous improvement, reflecting the dynamic interplay between architecture, socio-political contexts, and students’ spatial proclivities.

The students’ interpretation of cultural differences and their application in foreign contexts were carefully monitored and guided throughout the studio design processes. Consequently, the design approach of extreme ‘transference’ of cultural patterns in a foreign environment was discussed as a formalistic pitfall that should be considered closely. Unsuitable spatial dispositions, climate considerations, and other formal interpretations are avoided through careful contextual considerations. The issue of transferring architectural solutions from one specific environment into another requires detailed context analysis. This involves examining the new location’s local environmental conditions, cultural practices, and material availability. This approach aligns with sustainable development principles by respecting the unique characteristics of each location and avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions. The contextual analysis helps students modify indigenous architecture to meet the demands of different climates, ensuring cultural relevance, energy efficiency, and comfort.

At the beginning of the studio design process, students were provided with broad guidelines to frame their explorations. These included broad concepts, such as Symbolic Design Elements, Landscape Elements, Cultural and Historical References, Indigenous Public Spaces, Multifunctional Spaces, Transparency, Fortification, Insularity, Open and Interactive Design, Materiality, Craftsmanship, Accessibility, Architectural Storytelling, Landmark Architecture, and Cultural Bridges. Additionally, an authorial list of architectural means of expression can be understood as a comprehensive framework for creating spatial solutions.

The table below (

Table 2. Assessment criteria table (“+”—Needs Improvement, “++”—Satisfactory, “+++”—Excellent).

Criteria	Excellent (+++)	Satisfactory (++)	Needs Improvement (+)
Theoretical Framework	Comprehensive, well-argued, integrates diverse sources	Adequate, but lacks depth in some areas	Incomplete or poorly argued
Contextual Analysis	Insightful, nuanced understanding of socio-political contexts	Adequate understanding with minor gaps	Superficial or incorrect analysis
Design Innovation	Highly creative, challenges traditional notions	Creative but somewhat conventional	Lacks innovation, follows traditional paths
Practical Relevance	Highly applicable, well-integrated into real-world scenarios	Mostly applicable with some gaps	Lacks practical relevance

) outlines the criteria for evaluating students’ theoretical and design outputs. It specifies the description, weight, and performance levels (Excellent, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement) for each criterion, such as Theoretical Analysis, Contextual Sensitivity, Identity Alignment, Urban Integration, and Creative Spatial Manifestation. Detailed descriptors for each performance level are provided, giving clear expectations and examples of what constitutes different levels of achievement. This ensures transparency and fairness in grading, allowing students to understand the key areas of focus and the standards they need to meet. The evaluation was conducted by the core mentoring team (that continuously monitored the students’ work throughout the entire semester), Krstić and Filipović, as a comprehensive overview of the developmental process of individual student designs through all the pertinent stages of architectural design, with specific aspects presented in Table 2.

Spatially interpreting cultural identities involves navigating complexity, context, and creative expression, offering a wide-ranging learning experience.

Table 3. Student Grading Table (“+”—Needs Improvement, “++”—Satisfactory, “+++”—Excellent).

Design Solution	Theoretical Framework	Contextual Analysis	Design Innovation	Practical Relevance
Design Solution 1—Embassy of Spain	++	+++	+	++
Design Solution 2—Embassy and Cultural Center of Mexico	++	++	+++	+
Design Solution 3—Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany	+	++	+	++
Design Solution 4—Embassy of Japan	++	++	+++	++
Design Solution 5—Embassy and Cultural Center Ireland	+++	+++	+++	++
Design Solution 6—Embassy of the United States of America	+	++	+++	++
Design Solution 7—Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt	+	+	+	+
Design Solution 8—Embassy of Saudi Arabia	+++	+++	++	+++

, presented below, is used to assess and record the performance of eight students based on the criteria outlined in the Assessment Criteria Table. It includes individual scores for each criterion, weighted totals, and overall grades. The most important segments are the individual criterion scores and the weighted totals, which provide a comprehensive overview of each student’s performance across different aspects of the project. This helps instructors identify strengths and areas for improvement, offering a balanced assessment of theoretical and design outputs.

3.1.2. Second Phase—Qualitative Data Analysis of Design Proposals and Strategies

Qualitative Data Analysis of eight student design proposals includes the evaluation of reciprocal interactions among places, user groups, and socio-behavioral–cultural phenomena and detection of possible design strategies for embassy design to enhance cultural sensitivity and social well-being.

In architectural and environmental design studies, artifacts, buildings, and settings are often treated as “texts” that undergo interpretation and reinterpretation [57]. Consequently, this research adopts an interpretative approach to Qualitative Data Analysis [58]. Human activity and the built environment are understood as a “text”, a set of symbols that convey multiple layers of meaning. Qualitative data are particularly well suited for uncovering the meanings individuals assign to the events, processes, and structures in their lives, as well as for linking these meanings to the broader social context [58]. Based on the EBS framework (Figure 2), three essential perspectives emerged as the most significant aspects of the relationship between users, culture, and architecture:

• The users’ group perspective: The specific user groups were defined to ensure the design solution is inclusive and responsive to the diverse needs of a broader range of stakeholders (diplomatic staff, administrative staff, security and technical staff, stakeholders, media and event guests, visitors, local community, people with disabilities).
• The spatial-level perspective: The investigation examined the design intervention at multiple scales, from the room scale to the neighborhood scale, to ensure the cultural and social impacts were considered holistically (urban level, site level, building level, room level (individual spaces)).
• The socio-behavioral–cultural perspective: The research explored how cultural practices, traditions, and values could be incorporated into the design to enhance the space’s overall cultural significance and meaning (user experience and accessibility, cultural identity, flexibility and adaptability, environmental sustainability, safety and security, aesthetic and emotional impact, inclusivity, and community engagement).

The multifaceted research approach enabled an understanding of the intricate relationship between cultural sensitivity, social well-being, and architectural design strategies.

The defined conceptual framework allows us to look in which direction the shift towards greater cultural sensitivity and social sustainability in architecture can be achieved.

4. Findings and Discussion

4.1. Evaluation of Design Proposals within the Framework of EBS

As defined within the methodological approach, three specific perspectives (the users’ group, spatial-level, and cultural phenomenon perspectives) were analyzed to ensure a comprehensive approach. This analysis not only incorporates the needs of the specific building users but also addresses the broader context of the research, which includes the well-being of the entire community and the surrounding environment. The analysis is summarized in

Table 4. Evaluation of design proposals from the users’ group perspective (“♦” - Included, “◊”- Not included).

Design Solution	The Users’ Group Perspective Involved in Project Design
	Diplomatic Staff	Administrative Staff	Security & Technical Staff	Stakeholders	Media and Event Guests	Visitors	Local Community	People with Disabilities
Design Solution 1	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	◊	♦
Design Solution 2	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦
Design Solution 3	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	◊	◊	♦
Design Solution 4	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦
Design Solution 5	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦
Design Solution 6	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦
Design Solution 7	♦	♦	♦	♦	◊	◊	◊	◊
Design Solution 8	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦	♦

,

Table 5. Evaluation of design proposals from the spatial-level perspective.

Student Name	The Spatial-Level Perspective
	Urban Level	Site Level	Building Level	Room Level (Individual Spaces)
Design Solution 1	Open, green, and public spaces are well integrated. However, an intense analysis of how the design integrates into the city landscape and consideration of public transportation access is also needed.	Though parking solutions are weak, the site analysis is thorough, carefully focusing on topography and existing structure. The site features, such as elevation and view corridors, are well utilized.	The building design is innovative and functional, but it doesn’t adequately consider energy use. It incorporates green spaces well, creating a strong connection between indoors and outdoors.	Excellent room design offers flexibility and comfort for various user needs. Individual spaces are well-connected to the outdoors, with plenty of access to natural light and views of green spaces.
Design Solution 2	Excellent urban integration, with well-connected open areas that blend seamlessly with the city’s public, and a clear vision of the building’s role within the urban fabric.	The natural landscape is well-used, but the green spaces are not fully integrated with the building’s functions.	The building design is innovative but doesn’t adequately consider energy use and sustainability features. The building structure is well-considered, with a strong balance of form and function.	A functional room layout could benefit from a more thoughtful interior design that enhances user experience. There is a good balance between private and communal spaces, but some individual spaces remain underdeveloped.
Design Solution 3	The design does not adequately address open spaces and lacks opportunities for urban greening. It successfully aligns with the city’s character, but more thought is needed on the urban environment.	Satisfactory consideration of site conditions, but the building layout doesn’t fully utilize the natural landscape. The site plan is well-structured.	Functional layout, but misses opportunities to optimize natural light. It has a good building composition but lacks thought for how users will navigate complex spaces.	Room design is basic and utilitarian, failing to inspire or promote user engagement.
Design Solution 4	Excellent attention to the city’s cultural and historical context, but some oversights in mobility infrastructure planning. A clear vision of the building’s role within the urban fabric.	Good utilization of site features such as elevation and view corridors. Green spaces are well-incorporated into the site, offering natural buffers and areas for public use.	The building’s innovative design and functional layout promote aesthetics and functionality. Green spaces thoughtfully woven into the design promote aesthetics and functionality.	The room design offers flexibility and comfort for a variety of user needs. It strikes a good balance between private and public spaces.
Design Solution 5	Innovative design that enhances ephemeral aspects of the project. Outstanding attention to the city’s cultural and historical context.	The site design integrates well with existing buildings and infrastructure. It successfully maximizes site potential through public access and makes good use of the natural landscape by the riverside.	Separating the building into two artifacts, one solid restoration of an old industrial building and another ephemeral floating structure project, makes an outstanding basis for research.	A good balance between indoor spaces and outdoor access creates a harmonious flow between rooms and green/blue areas.
Design Solution 6	A centrally located urban site was selected. It is well-connected to the city’s life, offering excellent accessibility and integration with the surrounding urban fabric.	The site was designed so that its boundaries seamlessly blend with the surrounding environment, and public spaces are well-integrated and easily accessible.	The design’s functional organization is excellent and fully aligned with the security requirements, ensuring that the space operates efficiently while maintaining high safety standards.	Each room has been given adequate attention within the overall plan, with all functional standards being met, ensuring that the spaces are practical and well-integrated into the design.
Design Solution 7	A central urban location was chosen, offering excellent connections to the city’s heritage and green/blue zones. However, the design has not adequately utilized the site’s full potential.	The site’s topography has not been adequately utilized, and mobility within and around it has not been sufficiently analyzed.	The design predominantly emphasized aesthetic form, while the functional connections between spaces were primarily overlooked.	Individual spaces are too isolated from the outdoors, lacking views or access to green areas.
Design Solution 8	The site is connected to its surroundings through open and green spaces, where boundaries exist but are not rigid or emphasized. Instead, they are appropriately adjusted to blend with the environment.	The plot’s organization is exceptional, with well-thought-out access points and mobility pathways that make the design solution easy to understand and navigate.	The organization of the building is highly complex, yet it has been functionally resolved excellently, allowing for smooth movement throughout and ensuring that all spaces receive adequate sunlight.	Well-considered room designs that offer comfort and practicality. The individual rooms have been specifically designed to cater to the defined user groups, ensuring that each space meets its intended occupants’ unique needs and requirements.

and

Table 6. Evaluation of design proposals from the socio-behavioral–cultural perspective.

Design Solution	The Cultural Phenomenon Perspective
	Experience/Accessibility	Flexibility/Adaptability	Environmental Sustainability	Safety/Security	Aesthetic/Emotional Impact	Inclusivity	Community Engagement
Design Solution 1	The design offers good accessibility with clearly defined pathways and entrances.	The spaces are flexible enough to be reconfigured based on different functions. Adaptability in long-term use is limited.	Sustainability measures are present but not fully integrated into the building’s core functions.	Security features are well-planned, with controlled access points.	The aesthetic choices create a serene and calming atmosphere.	The design is inclusive, considering a wide range of user needs.	The design encourages community engagement through open public spaces.
Design Solution 2	The design excels in creating an immersive experience, but some accessibility features are underdeveloped.	Flexibility is a strong point, with adaptable interior layouts.	The project lacks innovative approaches to environmental design.	Safety is a concern, as some escape routes are unclear.	The design is visually captivating and fosters a strong emotional response.	Inclusivity is a highlight, with spaces that cater to various physical abilities.	Multifunctional areas support community engagement.
Design Solution 3	The design is highly accessible, with intuitive paths and clear signage. However, better use of space could enrich the overall experience.	The design includes flexible areas that can be used for multiple purposes, but the exterior lacks adaptability.	Sustainability is minimally addressed, with only basic energy-saving measures.	The design prioritizes security without compromising aesthetics.	More cohesion between spaces would strengthen aesthetic impact.	The project promotes inclusivity with well-designed spaces for different user groups.	Community engagement is minimal, with few spaces designed for public use.
Design Solution 4	Experience is engaging, with attention to detail in how users interact with different spaces.	The design’s adaptability is minimal, with little room for changes or reconfiguration. It is rigid in its current form.	Sustainability is well-considered, with efficient energy use and green spaces.	Security is robust, with well-placed surveillance and clear escape routes.	The design is visually appealing but lacks emotional warmth.	The project promotes inclusivity with well-designed spaces for different user groups.	Community interaction is considered but not fully realized. The spaces feel isolated from the broader social environment.
Design Solution 5	The design is highly accessible, with intuitive paths and clear signage.	The design is fluid and temporary. This approach allows for flexibility and adaptability.	Environmental concerns are well-integrated into the design, with good use of passive heating and cooling.	Safety protocols are well integrated into the design.	The aesthetic choices are both beautiful and functional, creating an emotional connection with the users.	Inclusivity is well-integrated into the design, though more attention could be given to sensory disabilities and accessibility.	The project actively encourages community involvement, with spaces designed for events and gatherings.
Design Solution 6	Accessibility is a strength in this design, with thoughtful consideration for disabled users.	While the indoor spaces are adaptable, the design does not easily support future changes.	Sustainability is well-considered, with efficient energy use and green spaces.	The project strongly focuses on safety, with clear emergency exits and well-placed security systems.	The space’s aesthetic impact is strong, creating an inviting atmosphere. However, the emotional connection to it feels distant.	Inclusivity is addressed, but certain user groups feel overlooked.	The design fosters community interaction through shared spaces.
Design Solution 7	Access points are well-positioned, but the overall user experience feels disconnected from the environment.	Adaptability is minimal, with little room for changes or reconfiguration.	Environmental sustainability is a weak point in this project.	Safety and security have been overlooked in favor of aesthetics.	Aesthetic appeal is minimal, with a utilitarian focus.	Some areas need better accessibility features.	Community interaction is considered but not fully realized.
Design Solution 8	The design balances accessibility and user experience well.	Highly adaptable design that allows for easy modifications over time.	Strong focus on sustainability, using renewable energy and green spaces effectively.	The project strongly focuses on safety, but some entry points need better control.	This harmony between the design and natural elements enhances the overall experience for users.	The design is highly inclusive and assessable, accommodating various user needs.	There is little attention to community engagement in this design.

, which detail how specific students work to meet defined EBS aspects.

4.1.1. The Users’ Group Perspective

All projects were evaluated based on the user groups they addressed in their designs (Table 4). The full range of user groups was defined through a review and analysis of the existing literature, ensuring that the projects considered the diverse needs and requirements of those interacting with the buildings. This approach enabled a comprehensive evaluation of how effectively each project addressed the needs of the various stakeholders involved.

Based on the table, two dominant approaches to project development can be identified: one that includes and engages all user groups and another that keeps the interior spaces of the embassies closed off from the wider public and community. The first approach promotes openness and interaction, ensuring the embassy bridges the host country and the represented nation’s cultures. In contrast, the second approach prioritizes privacy and security, limiting access to a more exclusive group of users.

4.1.2. The Spatial-Level Perspective

The perspective of the analysis included the spatial-level perspective involved in project design. Four spatial levels of analysis were included in the evaluation process to assess the extent to which the embassy projects comprehensively analyzed the impact of the buildings (Table 5).

The spatial analysis also identified two dominant design styles: the first integrates the plot into the surrounding space both visually and functionally, establishing a direct connection with the street; the second treats openness only in a visual sense, where despite visual communication, the space remains otherwise isolated. The first approach encourages physical and functional interaction with the environment, while the second limits engagement to mere visual openness, maintaining a sense of separation from its surroundings.

4.1.3. The Socio-Behavioral–Cultural Perspective

The third perspective recognizes seven socio-behavioral–cultural phenomena as essential aspects of architectural design (Table 6): Experience/Accessibility, Flexibility/Adaptability, Environmental Sustainability, Safety/Security, Aesthetic/Emotional Impact, Inclusivity, Community, and Engagement. Considering these cultural phenomena can help create spaces that are not only environmentally sustainable but also socially and culturally responsive, fostering a greater sense of well-being and belonging among building occupants and the wider community.

Each design solution addresses selected phenomena to various degrees. For example, Design Solutions 1, 5, and 8 emphasize accessibility and flexibility, ensuring user experience is central to the design. However, while accessibility is a strength, certain designs, such as Solution 7, reveal gaps in environmental sustainability or community engagement. Conversely, Solution 8 integrates strong sustainability practices and harmonizes natural elements. These findings highlight the importance of considering all seven phenomena comprehensively to create spaces that are not only sustainable but also socially and culturally responsive, promoting a sense of well-being and belonging among both users and the broader community. Including all phenomena in architectural design ensures that the built environment is aligned with the diverse needs of its occupants while fostering social interaction and cultural identity.

4.2. Identification of Design Strategies for Enhancing Cultural Sensitivity and Social Well-Being

Based on the evaluation of design proposals within the framework of EBS, the two distinctive design strategies for enhancing cultural sensitivity and social well-being can be recognized: (1) Protected Cultural Integration Design Strategy and (2) Open Cultural Connectivity Design Strategy.

4.2.1. Protected Cultural Integration Design Strategy

The identified “Protected Cultural Integration Design Strategy” involves design solutions that closely align with traditional approaches of embassy design. Security and control are prioritized, ensuring high safety and protection for staff and visitors. The internal spaces are deliberately introverted, creating a sense of privacy and separation. However, despite these protective features, the buildings do not impose an overtly defensive or isolated character in their appearance. Instead, they strive to integrate seamlessly into their surroundings, using architecture to subtly convey cultural messages and respect both the host and sending nations’ identities. This approach carefully balances the need for security with the desire for cultural exchange, incorporating public spaces that act as buffers between the more private, secure areas of the embassy complex. These public areas are open and accessible, fostering interaction and engagement with the local community. This design approach deeply respects the cultural heritage of both nations involved, promoting a greater sense of integration and well-being for users and creating a bridge between diplomacy and local culture. This strategy is evident in five out of eight students’ Master Thesis Designs (Design Solutions: 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8), with its most prominent application found in Design Solution 8.

Design Solution 8 reflects broader Saudi practices of embedding cultural identity within the built environment. Entrances and workspaces for both diplomatic and local staff are segregated, adhering to the concept of extraterritoriality, which justifies exposing individuals (e.g., local embassy staff) to Saudi norms. The uncompromising cultural heritage of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, particularly its Islamic foundations, permeates every aspect of life and endeavor. This rigid adherence to religious and cultural principles has produced both physical and invisible boundaries that define spatial and social interactions [59]. These boundaries convey non-verbal messages about cultural differentiation and act as instruments for reinforcing cultural identity.

The drastic transformation of Saudi Arabia’s architecture and urban patterns began in the 1960s and 1970s, driven by economic and political changes following the discovery of oil. The rapid urban development and the adoption of Western planning and design principles led to concerns among the local population about the loss of architectural identity [60]. The resulting disruption of indigenous urban patterns highlighted the need to preserve cultural identity through architecture [61]. The embassy in Belgrade exemplifies how Saudi Arabia uses architecture to express its identity, where boundaries are a fundamental factor in defining space and understanding the relationship between individuals and their environment.

Private spaces in Saudi Arabia behave as extraterritorial entities, where building regulations prioritize the establishment of privacy within physical territories at all costs. This need for privacy often results in high walls or barriers that separate private and public spaces, even if one party objects to such elements. There is also a noticeable appropriation of public spaces to create more privatized environments, demonstrating the significant influence of privacy on the spatial organization [59]. In public areas, invisible boundaries of personal space are strictly observed, prohibiting interactions between certain groups. These mechanisms for regulating social interaction aim to enhance privacy, with space being controlled through physical and social barriers [59].

Traditional architecture in Saudi Arabia is deeply embedded with social concepts and symbolic forms characteristic of its culture [62,63]. These elements form the spirit of a place, reflecting the daily lives and values of its people. Examining traditional architecture and urban patterns provides insights into the cultural connotations of Saudi space. Understanding the past is crucial for preserving Saudi Arabia’s identity, both physically and spiritually. Establishing an environment coded in the way locals express their values helps maintain this identity.

The organization of space in Saudi Arabia is influenced by both function and gender [62]. This dual influence creates boundaries (Figure 3 and Figure 4) that are not universally applicable but are specific to the cultural norms and beliefs of the society [64]. Analyzing the embassy in Belgrade reveals that traditional patterns are not strictly adhered to in location choice or design. The embassy does not exclusively follow the diplomatic neighborhood model, indicating flexibility in spatial representation.

Saudi Arabia, while declaring its adherence to Western values, maintains a traditional identity anchored by its role as the guardian of the two holy mosques. This identity is projected through its urban spaces and architecture, which are deeply influenced by its social, religious, natural, and historical context [65]. The solid and indelible identity of Saudi architecture is a testament to the complex relationship between cultural heritage and spatial expression, where boundaries play a crucial role in defining and preserving this identity.

The design for the new embassy for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, developed by Sanja Stevanović (Ms.), was primarily adjusted to follow the qibla line, the most important direction in Islam. The Qibla is often known traditionally simply as “the west”, resulting in mosques built oriented due west or to the direction of sunset. The longitudinal axis of this building design follows said line. Located in the Topčider neighborhood of Belgrade, Serbia, an area marked by lush greenery and the historical site of the previous palace complex, the embassy’s placement reflects Saudi Arabia’s tendency to establish its diplomatic outposts away from city centers. This strategic choice underscores the importance of privacy and separation in Saudi culture. The choice of this location allowed for the creation of green spaces that serve as transitional boundary zones, rather than forming rigid barriers or fences. This approach not only enhances the natural surroundings of the Topčider neighborhood but also reflects a thoughtful integration of cultural and environmental elements, where the embassy’s privacy and security are maintained through natural buffers, rather than physical enclosures. This design strategy aligns with Saudi Arabia’s preference for separation, while fostering a softer, more harmonious relationship with the surrounding landscape.

Rigid gender segregation is a notable feature of the embassy’s design. Previous research on the spatial division between sexes in Saudi vernacular architecture influenced the implementation of clear, separate spaces for men and women [66]. This division is not merely functional but deeply cultural, reflecting longstanding social norms. Entrances and workspaces for both diplomatic and local staff are segregated, adhering to the concept of extraterritoriality, which justifies explicitly exposing individuals (e.g., local embassy staff) not inherently familiar with these cultural and spatial patterns to Saudi norms (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8). This architectural approach in the embassy in Belgrade mirrors the broader Saudi practice of embedding cultural identity within the built environment. It serves as a concrete example of how physical and invisible boundaries are used to maintain and express cultural identity, ensuring that even in a foreign context, the essence of Saudi social and spatial norms is preserved and communicated.

When interpreted through the lenses of cultural sensitivity, the design proposal for the Saudi Arabian embassy in Belgrade exemplifies the intricate relationship between these aspects and architectural expression. By embedding traditional elements such as the qibla alignment and rigid gender segregation, the embassy design preserves and perpetuates the cultural identity of Saudi Arabia, even within a foreign context. These features not only maintain continuity with traditional practices but also ensure that the cultural and religious norms of Saudi society are sustained across different geographies and contexts.

The placement of the embassy away from the city center in a more private, secluded area underscores the cultural emphasis on privacy and separation, projecting a carefully curated image of Saudi society to the international community. The use of physical and invisible boundaries within the design communicates non-verbal messages about cultural differentiation and reinforces Saudi Arabia’s distinct identity. These architectural choices serve not only to protect cultural values but also to assert them within the global arena, making the embassy a potent instrument of cultural exchange.

Finally, the embassy’s adherence to traditional Saudi social norms, particularly through gender segregation, operates as a powerful cultural signal in the international context. This design choice not only maintains internal cultural coherence but also communicates Saudi Arabia’s steadfast commitment to its cultural values, even in diplomatic settings abroad. Whether such commitment can potentially be detrimental when spatially articulated and reinforced remains to be debated. By embedding such strong cultural symbols in its architecture, Saudi Arabia can effectively promote its identity and values on the global stage. This strategic architectural expression highlights the embassy’s dual role in sustaining cultural identity and advancing social well-being objectives.

This strategy contributes to social well-being by balancing privacy, security, and community engagement. Through its thoughtful integration of public spaces as buffer zones, the design encourages interaction between the embassy and the local community while respecting the need for cultural separation and privacy. The inclusion of green spaces enhances environmental quality and offers areas for public use, promoting a sense of well-being for local residents and embassy staff. Additionally, by embedding cultural elements and respecting traditional values, this design approach ensures that the cultural identity of both nations is honored, creating a space where diplomacy and cultural exchange can thrive, ultimately supporting social harmony and well-being.

4.2.2. Open Cultural Connectivity Design Strategy

The Open Cultural Connectivity Design Strategy, in contrast to the previous one, embraces a predominantly open design. While security is still a concern, it is managed more through technological solutions, such as surveillance systems and access controls, rather than relying on physical barriers like walls and fences. This approach is characterized by fluidity and accessibility, creating a highly open and welcoming embassy space. Public areas are more expansive and interconnected, offering a seamless transition between the embassy and its surrounding environment. Despite the transparency, this approach does not compromise the functional efficiency of the embassy; diplomatic work and secure activities are carefully planned. The overall atmosphere is one of inclusivity, aiming to break down barriers and create a space where cultural exchange can flourish. The fluid design also reinforces a diplomatic vision where embassies act not just as isolated spaces but as integral parts of the social and urban fabric. This strategy is evident in three out of eight students’ Master Thesis Designs (Design Solutions: 1, 2, and 5), with its most prominent application in Design Solution 5.

Design Solution 5, developed by Mina Jeremić (Ms.), investigates Iceland’s evolving public image and presentation strategy, focusing on its differentiation in the digital age following its emancipation from Nordic rule. Iceland’s geographic isolation significantly influences its identity, evident in its public image [67]. Today, as Iceland emerges as an independent entity on the global stage, it faces the challenge of redefining and projecting its public image in a rapidly digitalizing world.

The design research centers on Iceland’s image in the cultural and entertainment fields—film, video, and music—examining the mechanisms used to project this “new stereotype” [68]. The research begins with an examination of Iceland’s historical identity, deeply rooted in nature. Despite significant technological advancement due to late industrialization, the new Icelandic identity still retains its natural core but now includes a technological dimension. This blend of technology and nature reflects the theme of extremes inherent in Icelandic identity. The “new stereotype” is explored through cultural and entertainment performances by artists like Björk, the Netflix series “Katla” (2021), and Jules Verne’s “Journey to the Center of the Earth”. These works highlight Iceland’s unique and extreme natural motifs, which are unparalleled globally. Additionally, the theme of technology coexisting with powerful nature is consistently present. This study results in the creation of a “dictionary of the new stereotype”, categorizing descriptors of Iceland into two groups: epithets and associators (identity identifiers). Epithets like raw, extreme, and exotic periphery describe Iceland’s character, while associators, such as geysers, minerals, ice, energy, fire, glaciers, and technology, are synonymous with its identity.

This design strategy is particularly suitable for countries looking to transform or redefine their image or those wishing to highlight a different aspect of their cultural identity as a dominant feature. By embracing openness, fluidity, and technological security, this architectural strategy can be used to project a forward-thinking, inclusive presence that fosters cultural exchange.

Comparing the historical and contemporary Icelandic identities reveals that while the core motifs of uniqueness, extremes, nature, isolation, and independence remain, they are now infused with new elements of technology, progress, and harmony. The resulting image is an advanced fusion that feels foreign and almost otherworldly. This exotic and dynamic stereotype entices audiences with a dramatic and unique landscape where life thrives in a distinctly Icelandic way, fully developed and urban yet simultaneously rural and isolated. The project proposes an experimental embassy concept of a floating object designed to take visitors on a journey from Belgrade to Iceland. The proposed travel route includes stations from Belgrade to Iceland via waterways, like the Danube, Main-Danube Canal, Rhine, and North Sea. Each station, such as Budapest (geyser), Bratislava (minerals), Vienna (ice), Frankfurt (energy), Rotterdam (volcano), and Edinburgh (glacier), intensifies the experience, establishing a hierarchy of themes. The project’s starting point is a cultural center at Belgrade’s Port, designed as a teaser for the journey, provoking interest in Iceland. Public Warehouse 2 in Belgrade, chosen for its industrial transformation potential, serves as the terminal with a cultural center. The design features a steel structure gallery and an external gate for boarding, with a facade of corrugated iron reminiscent of Icelandic houses.

This project involves transforming the industrial heritage into cultural facilities. By doing so, a unique link between the two countries is established, bridging historical industrial significance with contemporary cultural expression. This connection not only preserves the historical value of the site but also promotes cultural exchange and cooperation, enriching the cultural landscape of both nations. The cultural center hosts a permanent, immersive exhibition structured through six sequences: geyser, minerals, ice, energy, volcano, and glacier. Each sequence provides a tactile and ambient experience, leading visitors through a narrative that maintains intrigue about Iceland. The journey culminates in an increasing sense of mystery, leaving visitors eager to learn more about Iceland’s true nature (Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13).

The ambient sequence includes the following:

• Geyser: Emphasizes the power of water, using sounds and the contrast between activation and silence, with ample light;
• Minerals: Represents science, using underground ambiences, solitude, and tactile focus, with darker spaces;
• Ice: Continues solitude and silence, focusing on the expanse and clarity, with fresh air and simplicity;
• Energy: Introduces darkness and noise, with pulsating, vibrating ambiences;
• Volcano: Presents solid, dry, heavy spaces with occasional strong light bursts;
• Glacier: Combines heaviness and cold with bright illumination, creating a pressurized, illuminated ice cave.

The starting station project serves as a conceptual experiment for other journey stations, each reflecting Iceland’s identity in a programmatically similar manner. This approach ensures that the journey intensifies the experience of Icelandic identity, maintaining its mystery while inviting deeper exploration.

When interpreted through the lenses of cultural sustainability, the design proposal for the Icelandic embassy and travel route centers on Iceland’s evolving public image, demonstrating a profound engagement with both the concepts of cultural sensitivity and social well-being. By emphasizing Iceland’s unique identity, rooted in its geographic isolation and historical context, as interpreted by Ms. Jeremić, the project reinforces the importance of preserving cultural narratives in a rapidly globalizing world. The strategic use of motifs such as nature, isolation, and technological progress ensures that Iceland’s identity remains distinctive and inimitable, which is crucial for maintaining cultural sustainability. The project’s design elements, such as the immersive exhibition sequences, reflect Iceland’s natural and technological duality, thereby preserving and promoting the nation’s cultural identity.

The creation of a travel route from Belgrade to Iceland, with thematic stations representing Icelandic motifs, serves as a cultural diplomacy tool in multiple counties and urban environments, subtly influencing perceptions of Iceland through controlled and curated experiences. The deliberate use of themes and motifs not only sustains Iceland’s cultural narrative but also projects it onto the global stage, enhancing Iceland’s influence through a subtle yet impactful architectural strategy. The project exemplifies how architecture can be a medium for both cultural preservation and social innovation, ensuring that Iceland’s identity rebrand remains relevant in an interconnected world.

The Open Cultural Connectivity Design Strategy contributes to social well-being by fostering inclusivity and cultural exchange through an open, accessible design. The strategy promotes interaction and engagement with the local community by integrating public spaces and emphasizing fluid transitions between the embassy and the surrounding environment. Technological security solutions ensure safety while maintaining openness, allowing for greater public involvement and cultural exchange without compromising functionality. This approach enhances social cohesion by breaking down physical barriers and creating spaces that invite exploration and connection, ultimately supporting a sense of belonging and cultural appreciation.

5. Conclusions

The identified design strategies emphasize the importance of design’s cultural and social dimensions, aiming to produce socially responsible architects capable of preserving cultural identities. The findings suggest that EBSs provide a practical, location-specific, and critical framework for architectural design, which can significantly enhance architectural design in terms of cultural sensitivity and well-being.

5.1. Summary of Findings Linked to Research Questions

• What are the challenges and opportunities in enhancing cultural sensitivity and social well-being in embassy architecture?

One of the key challenges lies in balancing the functional needs of security and privacy with the desire for openness and public engagement. Traditional embassy design often focuses on security and isolation, limiting the building’s interaction with its surrounding community. However, newer approaches, such as fluid and open designs, offer opportunities to create embassy spaces that promote cultural exchange and inclusivity while maintaining security through technological solutions rather than physical barriers.

Another challenge is integrating local cultural elements alongside the sending country’s national identity. Achieving this balance requires careful consideration of architectural styles, materials, and spatial organization that reflect both cultures. The opportunity here is the potential to create a diplomatic space that serves as a bridge between two nations, fostering understanding and respect.

Cultural sustainability in architectural design can be effectively achieved by deeply understanding and integrating cultural, historical, and social contexts into the design process. This involves identifying and analyzing local traditions and identities, determining how the design will reflect the needs and values of various stakeholders, and utilizing existing structures, both metaphorical and physical, to maintain cultural continuity. Incorporating different socio-behavioral–cultural phenomena at various spatial levels with respect for all user groups can ensure design solutions that are responsible and reflective to the ecological and cultural local contexts.

Moreover, using green and open spaces can enhance social well-being by providing accessible public areas that connect the embassy with the local community. These spaces can serve as buffers that ensure privacy while promoting interaction, transforming the embassy into a welcoming, integral part of the urban fabric. In conclusion, a culturally sustainable design offers the chance to meet the embassy’s diplomatic and security needs and promote cultural sensitivity and social well-being, making it a vital contributor to the host nation’s community.

Architecture, in turn, plays a pivotal role in embodying and projecting cultural narratives. Through meticulous design choices and thoughtful spatial configurations, architectural structures articulate specific cultural values, aesthetic preferences, and historical legacies to diverse domestic and international audiences.

• What are the main insights for educational approaches in the design studio, and which design strategies can be applied?

Effectively integrating the concept of cultural sustainability into an architectural curriculum requires a focus on all three defined EBS perspectives and their effective interrelation. The EBS framework prioritizes users’ needs, values, and behaviors while considering the cultural and environmental contexts of specific projects. This framework equips students with the knowledge to understand the social, cultural, and environmental implications of their designs. By fostering a critical attitude and encouraging interpretations of cultural identity through diverse architectural projects, students can navigate between global complexities and local identities.

Students faced several challenges in spatially interpreting cultural identities toward cultural sustainability: (1) Narrative Complexity: Understanding and translating multifaceted cultural narratives into architectural forms are intricate processes. Balancing historical, social, and symbolic aspects requires nuanced spatial interpretation, which is expected of graduating students. (2) Identity Discrepancies: Cultural identities vary across regions, histories, and communities. Students needed to adapt designs to Belgrade’s specific context while avoiding stereotypes and misrepresentations. Navigating discrepancies between perceived cultural identities (how culture is externally perceived) and conceived identities (how it is internally understood) proved challenging. Aligning these aspects theoretically and spatially was demanding. (3) Urban and Architectural Integration: Integrating cultural elements into Belgrade’s established urban fabric while maintaining functionality presented difficulties. Achieving harmony between imported identities and existing contexts required solid theoretical and conceptual foundations, followed by practical implementation. Translating abstract cultural concepts into tangible architectural spaces demands creativity. Students explored how cultural narratives, spatial layouts, and forms could express cultural nuances.

5.2. Research Limitations and Obstacles

This study acknowledges several limitations, particularly the small sample size and potential biases in student interpretations. With only eight projects forming the basis of analysis, the scope is confined, limiting the ability to generalize findings across diverse geopolitical and cultural contexts. Reliance on subjective student interpretations introduces inconsistencies and a lack of uniformity in the findings, which may not always align with practical applications, leading to gaps in real-world relevance. This discrepancy can impact this study’s applicability in professional architectural and diplomatic scenarios, as theoretical insights gained in an academic setting might not fully translate to practice due to differing constraints and challenges, such as legal and regulatory frameworks. It is also crucial to recognize that a country possesses multiple identities, and urban development’s multifaceted nature contributes to creating distinct yet interconnected identities within a single country [69].

Moreover, the academic setting of this study differs significantly from professional practice. While the theoretical insights and educational value are substantial, real-world constraints and challenges (e.g., legal and regulatory frameworks) may not be fully addressed. This discrepancy can impact the applicability of this study’s conclusions in practical architectural and diplomatic scenarios.

5.3. Moving Forward

The development of design frameworks that address both cultural and environmental sustainability should continue to evolve, with a particular focus on interdisciplinary collaboration. Encouraging critical thinking, fostering a deeper understanding of global and local contexts, and cultivating a sensitivity to the social implications of architecture will be key to shaping the next generation of socially responsible architects. This holistic approach will empower architects to create spaces that respect cultural heritage while addressing contemporary challenges related to social well-being and environmental sustainability, fostering inclusive, resilient communities that thrive in diverse and dynamic contexts.

This research demonstrates that innovative curricula can inspire sustainable attitudes and actions, bridging theoretical insights with practical applications. By addressing these interconnected challenges, this study emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to sustainable development in shaping the future of architectural education and practice, ultimately leading to more spatially and culturally resilient urban environments.