Architects lack the “flexibility” to apply the architectural signature of schools imposed four and a half years ago by the Legault government, deplore two organizations that represent them. A situation that risks harming the sustainability of the buildings thus constructed in addition to complicating their construction, they warn.
The Ordre des architectes du Québec (OAQ) and the Association des architectes en pratique privée du Québec (AAPPQ) both registered a mandate in the Lobbyists Registry last month as part of representations to the Ministry of Education “aimed at improving the approval processes associated with the architectural signature of schools,” noted The Duty.
“If it’s too prescriptive, it could lead us to standardize and have schools that are all the same,” warns AAPPQ executive director Lyne Parent. She wants to issue a “warning” to Quebec at a time when more than a hundred new schools are under construction in Montreal and elsewhere in the province. “There is a danger of slippage if we are too prescriptive and we don’t allow [aux architectes] the possibility of proposing things,” she said.
A “prescriptive” signature
The steps taken by these two organizations come four and a half years after the Legault government presented its new school real estate planning in February 2020. This aimed in particular to increase the life expectancy of new schools to 75 years, in addition to making them brighter and better ventilated.
However, it is the criteria concerning the appearance of these new schools that are raising eyebrows among architects.
In 2020, Quebec had mentioned the importance of integrating Quebec aluminum, wood and the color blue into the visual design of schools, notably on a stele installed at the front of the establishments. Premier François Legault had then mentioned his interest in making the province’s schools recognizable at first glance, in order to reflect the “national priority” that education has become.
“When we look at the architectural signature document as a whole, it’s a very interesting document,” says architect Thomas Gauvin-Brodeur, a partner at Leclerc architectes. “Where it raises questions is when we are given more prescriptive elements” that must be included in the design of schools, he explains.
However, precisely, criteria that were intended to be “very generic” surrounding the visual signature of tomorrow’s schools have become, in recent years, “restrictive” in their implementation, deplores the president of the OAQ, Pierre Corriveau.
The latter blames in this regard the guide on the architectural signature updated in 2023 and called “A new generation of schools”. This came to specify how the key elements of this visual identity should be integrated into schools.
“This is where we see, for the first time, the words aluminum in exterior cladding, wooden steps, very specific elements” that leave little room for “interpretation” on the part of architects, explains Mr. Corriveau. Projects designed by architects must also be submitted to a committee of the Ministry of Education that must decide whether or not the imposed architectural signature has been respected.
“On the ground, this can lead to problems,” emphasizes Lyne Parent of the AAPPQ. “As soon as the requirements are too restrictive, you lead us into a way of doing things” that can “harm creativity” and the ability to adapt to the demands of the environment where these schools are built, she emphasizes.
It can therefore be difficult for architects to adapt, for example, to the demands of certain municipalities “which have urban planning expectations” concerning the integration of schools into the surrounding built environment, adds Mr.me Parent.
Quebec’s decision to impose natural wood in the visual signature of schools could also harm the sustainability of these establishments, as this material is not particularly resistant to winter conditions, notes Pierre Corriveau.
“In the simplification that was made of the initial document [sur la stratégie architecturale des écoles]we have started to put in not only points that are unnecessarily restrictive, but also, which distract us from the objective, he says. Putting wood outside is an element that rots much more quickly, which has to be changed regularly and which therefore, in terms of sustainable development, does not meet its function.
“A decline” in the quality of schools
This issue was also the subject of an evening organized on March 12 by the media specialized in architecture and design Collective and hosted by its content manager, Marc-André Carignan. Joined by The Dutythe latter says he was surprised by the enthusiasm for his event called “Ça gosse ou pas, la signature architecturale scolaire?”, which brought together most of the architectural firms that design schools in the province.
“It got architects talking a lot,” many of whom deplored the “prescriptive” nature of this architectural signature, recalls Mr. Carignan. “Someone even said: we’re now being told how to design our things, what colour and what materials,” he says. He himself believes that the architectural signature of schools imposed by Quebec represents “a worrying step backwards for the quality of our public buildings.”
The AAPPQ and the OAQ intend to continue to dialogue with Quebec in order to find a way to respond to their members’ concerns in this matter. “For now, this is what we see as the key,” emphasizes Lyne Parent.
Joined by The Dutythe Ministry of Education assures for its part that it “applies the policy of architectural signature with discernment by giving a lot of latitude to architects to include these requirements” in the design of schools.
“The guidelines set do not specify in any case the elements which must be blue, wood or aluminium,” adds the ministry, which states that “professionals are free to integrate them into their projects according to the limits of the budget, deadlines and quality requirements.”