Notions of social, economic and cultural development often posit a dynamic relation between developed areas and less developed ones, conceived of not as autonomous units but as ‘centres’ or ‘peripheries’ in a larger global context. But there may be blind spots to this conceptual framework, with its assumptions of strong dichotomies of hegemonic, dominant centres and subaltern peripheries. The implicit valorisation of a centre as the prime mover with respect to an essentially passive and receptive periphery may not successfully describe all forms of development, particularly in the area of culture. This brief article looks at this problem in relation to a cultural route recognized by the Council of Europe, ATRIUM (Architecture of Totalitarian Regimes in Europe’s Urban Memory). It proposes that the ‘dissonance’ of the cultural experience taken forward by the members of the cultural route, rather than being peripheral, cannot be considered marginal to cultural transmission. Likewise, the historical experience of small towns under totalitarian regimes may only appear to be marginal and peripheral but instead can be interpreted as central to the developmental procedures of regimes. Finally, to consider the cultural activities of these apparently peripheral provincial towns is to underrate their significance.