{"id":27457,"date":"2026-05-05T15:38:58","date_gmt":"2026-05-05T20:38:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crc.umontreal.ca\/?p=27457"},"modified":"2026-05-05T18:58:21","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T23:58:21","slug":"ce-qui-nest-pas-accessible-nest-pas-public-une-nouvelle-recherche-financee-par-le-crsh-savoir-vise-a-mieux-comprendre-pour-mieux-remedier-au-manque-daccessibilite-des-edi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crc.umontreal.ca\/en\/ce-qui-nest-pas-accessible-nest-pas-public-une-nouvelle-recherche-financee-par-le-crsh-savoir-vise-a-mieux-comprendre-pour-mieux-remedier-au-manque-daccessibilite-des-edi\/","title":{"rendered":"WHAT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE IS NOT PUBLIC: New research funded by SSHRC (INSIGHT) aims to better understand and address the lack of accessibility in buildings and public spaces in Canada"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=””]<\/p>\n

Coordinated by the Canada Research Chair in Architecture, Competition and Quality at the Universit\u00e9 de Montr\u00e9al (Prof. Jean-Pierre Chupin<\/a>), this project has received $412,000 in funding from the SSHRC\u2019s INSIGHT programme (2026\u20132031). The interdisciplinary approach brings together researchers in interior design from the University of Montreal (Dr Olivier Vallerand<\/a>,\u00a0Prof. Carmela Cucuzzella<\/a>), in landscape architecture from the University of Toronto (Prof. Rob M. Wright<\/a>) and in urban planning from Toronto Metropolitan University (Dr Samantha Biglieri<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is now clear that not all public buildings will be accessible by 2040, despite the adoption of the\u00a0Canadian Accessibility Act<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>(SC 2019, ch.10). By perpetuating barriers that effectively exclude people with disabilities, these spaces cannot fulfil their \u2018public\u2019 role.<\/p>\n

In contrast to the progress made in environmental and sustainability issues, the lack of understanding of the spatial implications of experiences related to disability and special needs remains a major obstacle to educational, practical and policy responses across all disciplines of the built environment. Our previous research has demonstrated how awards for excellence and competitions influence definitions of quality in architecture, interior design, landscape architecture and urban planning.<\/p>\n

We hypothesise that competitions and awards still reflect cultural and behavioural biases and do not meet the requirements of the Accessibility Act. Representations of users remain rooted in a worldview where the human body is idealised and standardised by simplistic images from which neurodiversity is conspicuously absent. We propose to make these ideological and procedural barriers explicit by theorising them through a series of comparative analyses of competition entries and awards for excellence in the Canadian context.<\/p>\n

Using two databases compiled by our team (the\u00a0Canadian Competition Catalogue<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0ArchiQualiData<\/a>), the research focuses on around forty examples of public spaces at various scales identified within Canadian institutions, such as: cultural buildings, libraries, sports centres, state schools, public parks and civic centres. Paradoxically, these contexts raise questions of accessibility to varying degrees, even though they meet the requirements of current norms and standards. The research involves a qualitative comparative analysis of the projects and theoretical frameworks, as well as an inventory of educational approaches and shortcomings, and the collection of experiences reported by a reference group across four key areas:<\/p>\n