A semantic inventory of preconceived barriers to quality in Canada's built environment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19218945 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Morteza Hazbei (0000-0001-5436-3833, Université de Montréal, corresponding author), Jean-pierre Chupin (0000-0003-4164-5166, Université de Montréal) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 175 |
| Pages | 107194-107194 |
| Publication date | 2026-05-16 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cities (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0264-2751 • E-ISSN: 1873-6084 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cities.2026.107194 |
| OpenAlex | W7161397504 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 6 |
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.
Built environment · Built-up area · Development environment · Quality (philosophy) · Facilities and Workplace Management · Sustainable Building Design and Assessment · Urban Design and Spatial Analysis
| Highly cited | No |
|---|