Last Monday, at the Grande Bibliothèque in Montréal, several members of our team attended with great interest the major conference organized by Architecture sans frontières Québec, an organization of which we are proud partners. We chose to become actively involved with ASFQ in order to take part in meaningful change and to support an organization that assists populations affected by crises, natural disasters, or social inequalities, both locally and abroad.

Under the theme “Architecture and design as catalysts for social impact,” the evening unfolded in three parts, featuring two keynote speakers, followed by a roundtable discussion with two architects in private practice and two representatives from the leadership of university-level institutions in design and architecture.

Nicolas Ferro, Architect and engineer, Atelier 43 + ASF France

As is often the case with roundtable discussions, the conversation gradually drifted from the main theme toward the challenges faced by architecture and design professionals when developing socially oriented projects—and the near self-sacrifice such work is often assumed to require. Some participants even went so far as to suggest imposing mandatory pro bono work as part of architectural education.

At first glance, the proposal was well received and even applauded. Yet, upon reflection—even though we ourselves often volunteer our time for certain causes—should social architecture not be considered a market like any other? Shouldn’t these projects benefit from more substantial government funding? This would allow organizations access to professional teams with greater time and resources to design better projects and, ultimately, higher-quality buildings. Moreover, architecture with a social mission would attract a broader range of professionals, including the most experienced, creative, and talented. All the conditions would then be in place for social organizations to occupy and operate infrastructures that truly support their important missions under optimal conditions.

Another issue largely overlooked during the discussions was the set of standards governing the construction of social housing in Québec and Canada. These highly restrictive regulations can sometimes confine designers’ creativity within a narrow framework, preventing the development of innovative solutions that could improve user well-being and potentially generate long-term savings. While standards exist to ensure a minimum level of quality, they should not become barriers to progress and evolution. Despite these constraints, some local projects have set strong precedents and serve as models to follow—but unfortunately, they remain the exception rather than the rule. To truly act as “catalysts for social impact,” as stated in the conference theme, architects and designers need greater latitude to fully apply their knowledge and creativity.

Innovation should not be reserved solely for the most privileged. Social architecture, too, should benefit from the talent and insight of our most gifted creators. As a society, rather than settling for maintaining a minimal quality of life for those in need, we could aspire to set an example—offering vulnerable populations high-quality infrastructure whose design actively and effectively promotes inclusion, equality, and social reintegration.