This new article, written by Post-Doctoral Student Morteza Hazbei and Project Director Jean-Pierre Chupin, delves into the understanding of barriers preventing the creation of a high-quality built environment by Canadians from diverse backgrounds. The study, published in Cities, analyzes discussions and reports from more than 200 participants, including citizens, professionals, public-sector representatives, researchers and students involved in the SSHRC Partnership on Quality in the Built Environment.
You can read the abstract and download the article below:
Abstract:
Traditional definitions of quality in architecture and the built environment have been increasingly challenged over the past decades, particularly through critical perspectives on spatial justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, and postcolonialism. Standardized definitions may reassure decision-makers but ignore evolving values reshaping quality. A Canadian SSHRC-funded research partnership is used as a testbed to examine how diverse stakeholders challenge conventional definitions of quality and propose new dimensions. This partnership functions as a living lab, bringing together representatives of citizens, municipalities, professionals, and academics to examine barriers to quality beyond traditional expertise. Drawing on the partnership’s open-access reports, the paper asks: What barriers to built environment quality do participants perceive when they convene around “partnership roundtables”? To address this question, the study develops a semantic inventory of key themes and barriers to quality using two methods: (1) a qualitative content analysis of the 2022 Montreal Convention reports, and (2) analysis of the extracted themes using a researcher-developed framework—disciplinary, managerial, and critical—to examine shifts in definitions of quality. A total of 96 “barriers to quality” were identified and grouped into seven themes. The most discussed included a) Communication and Engagement, b) Sustainability and Inclusivity (EDIA), and c) Programming, Design, Building, and Management. The findings show that the themes align mainly with critical definitions of quality, with little to no disciplinary representation. This suggests that citizens and public-sector stakeholders seek a broader redefinition of quality, and that these expectations are at odds with the traditional disciplinary values of architecture and related disciplines.
Read the full article:
