Urban Environment during Post-War Reconstruction: Architectural Dominants and Nodal Points as Measures of Changes in an Urban Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

land-1398454-peer-review-v1

Review of:  Urban environment during post-war reconstruction: architectural dominants and nodal points as measures of changes in an  urban landscape

The manuscript has improved somewhat compared to the earlier submission.

The explanation of /justification for the  boundaries still needs more work. Why were the boundaries chosen as they are? What is the logic?

 

Why does the study focus on nodal points? This needs better explanations

The image quality (and size) of the maps is quite inadequate. As they form the core of the paper, they, together with the aerial image need to be shown larger and explained better.

 

All taken together, the paper is not convincing and seems bogged down in a discussion of data that do not enhance the conclusions.

 

The paper needs a thorough rethink.

 

Line 355          what is “war blitz reception”?

Line 369-370  “monumental temples?

 

 

The paper still needs also a thorough edit by a NATIVE English speaker. It is disappointing the the authors did not have this carried out before their resubmission.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your remarks. Let us introduce our response, as follows:

1. Although we are sure that the criteria of selection the area are clear we added explanation, that the selected area is almost the whole contemporary downtown except the area free from war demolition in the western side (p. 8).
2. It is hard to agree that the study focus mostly on nodal points: parallel elements of the study are landmarks. However, changes in configuration of urban nodes are significant indicator of changes in urban network. In consequence, large part of the article constitute explanations and figures reflecting this indicator – structural analysis are always rather complicated, so need more explanation. In reaction of reviewer’s reference, we added explanations that nodal points are useful indicator of changes in urban network and in consequence in some grade of city landscape (p. 2).
3. We enlarged and improved quality of almoast all images, especially Fig. 5 and 7, and corrected Tab. 3.
4. We can’t agree the remark, that data do not enhace the conclusions: there in the article are clearly concluded as result of research that the landscape of reconstructed city got depleted. Such the conclusion was articulated during different discussions and publications between end of 1970’s till 1990’s, but as the result of our research we delivered the clear evidence of that. We added short explanation on p. 24. We hope, that thanks to the above mentioned improvements, also this aspect of the article got better explanation clarity.
5. 'war blitz reception': we replaced word 'reception' with 'location'
6. 'monumental temples': rearranged to: “temples of monumental form (3 catholic churches and an orthodox one)”
7. Finally, own improvements of English language we introduced and then a native speaker suggested ca. 70 ones.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have adequately responded to the reviewer's comments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your remarks to our article. Although you generally accepted the article, according to remarks of the other reviewer and our own revision we proposed groups of improvements, as follows:

1. Enlarging of almoast all the images.
2. Improvement of visibility of Fig. 5 and 7.
3. Addition of few explanations.
4. Rearrangement of some sentences.
5. Own and made with external support improvements of language nature, both in the main text and in figures' explanations.

We hope, after these changes the article is much clear and communicative.

Sincerely,

Bartosz Czarnecki, Michal P. Chodorowski

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed some of the issues raised. The paper is still not convincing and seems bogged down in a discussion of data that do not enhance the limited conclusions. Ultimately, it is publishable, but the authors do themselves an injustice here.

Some minor still need to be addressed:

'war blitz reception': we replaced word 'reception' with 'location'

What is this? war blitz location makes no sense...Do you mean that the photo was taken after the war? or is that photo a bomb target photo taken during the war?

A NATIVE English speaker should have picked up on this. 

 

 

'monumental temples': rearranged to: “temples of monumental form (3 catholic churches and an orthodox one)”

Why 'monumental temples'? use 'churches' A NATIVE English speaker should have picked up on this. 

 

This paper needs a proper edit by a professional editor and NATIVE English speaker. The English remains problematic

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks to your comments we were able to introduce revisions to the article, as follows:

1. ‘Paper bogged down in a discussion of data’: the Discussion and Conlusions we tried to divide to part about a simply data results and explaining wider implications. To improve manuscript according this comment, we made few cuts in the text, especially on pp. 28-29.
2. ‘war blitz location’: yes, it was some kind of our misunderstanding. We replaced it with ‘location of the war damage’.
3. ‘temples of monumental form’: by analogy as above: we left only: ‘These are 3 catholic churches and an orthodox one, that have not been destroyed….’
4. English correction was made.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

 

land-1344483-peer-review-v1

 

Review of :

 Urban environment during post-war reconstruction: architectural dominants and nodal points as measures of changes in an urban landscape

 

The document is interesting, but not well articulated in the analytical section.

 

Line 163-64”  “before the war” state which war ( WWII)

 

Figures 1 and 2 are not referenced in the text of the paper. Is there an option to provide images of the streets before and after reconstruction/planning? Or add map sections of before and after…

 

Figure 3 is not referenced in the text of the paper.

I would recommend to make both parts of the image bigger (underneath each other, not sideways) to allow for better comparison

 

Figure3            The image quality needs to be improved.

 

Why were the boundaries chosen as they are? What is the logic. This seems to eiter missing or so badly explained that the reviewer is confused.

 

Figure 4 is not referenced in the text of the paper.

Figure 4 left  is  not legible .

 

Figure 5 is not referenced in the text of the paper.

Figure 6 is not referenced in the text of the paper.

 

Figure 6 typo: ‘reasearch’. ‘after war’ should be ‘post war’

 

Figure 7 is not referenced in the text of the paper.

Figure 7 what is the meaning of the different types and thicknesses of the lines?.

 

Table 1 the caption uses ‘exposure directions’ the table itself uses ‘expositions” … be consistent. Also, the wording is awkward

 

 

Line 378          The paper makes reference to sectors that are not explained

Table 2            The paper makes reference to sectors that are not explained

Line 425 ff                  The paper makes reference to sectors that are not explained

 

Ah… they are shown in figure 8, but there is no reference to this..

 

Why are the sectors chosen in this way (i.e. rigidly N-S, E-W rather than following the layout of the section  of the streets chosen? The bulk of streets is not alined N-S but SW-NE. So the grid shoulsd be rotated according. The outcome of the analysis would have been very different. As it stands, unexplained as it is, this is  a fatal methodological flaw

 

Table 3 is largely duplication table 1 with additions. Table 1 can be omitted

 

 

It is also not discussed at all why the new streets were established, i.e what did they serve/where did they lead beyond the section of town analysed? What was in the mind of the town planner, how much was intentional, how much was opportunistic based on WWII destruction?

It was not discussed how much of the pre WWII building stock in these areas had survived. A map of the WWII destruction would be useful to make the reader understand what happened. The discussion lines 485-489 makes n sense unless we know more about these details

 

Minor issues

 

There are some issues of expression and sentence construction. Here are some examples:

Lines 11-12:    “which was not  possible before in long-term evolving structures. Usually, however, it was impossible” reword this

 

Line  19:  changes in the number and rank of the space with which the landmarks exhibition was carried

 

Line 50-51: improving communication, and ensuring the maneuverability of military units or end the past, or the inability to rebuild in the old  shape, understood as modernization.” Extremely convoluted expression

 

Line 68: “Fortunately, usually, there was impossible to change everything” … expression

 

Line 176 “the town's buildings developed almost exclusively as wooden” … expression

 

This paper needs to be thoroughly edited by a native English speaker for grammar, structure and logic of expression.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The main contribution of this paper is to investigate the change of urban structure from the perspective of landmarks and nodes of urban network. The introduction is logical and progressive, and the research question is clear. It also explains why Bialystok was chosen as the research area of this paper.

1. The architectural points in the title should be explained in the text and corresponding to the landmarks.
2. The innovation of the article should be explicitly stated in the abstract, as well as in the introduction.
3. The abstract should present the findings quantitatively (numerically).
4. In the last sentence of the abstract, the meaning is not clearly expressed
5. What's the difference between Reconstruction and rebuilding？
6. The introduction focuses on why architectural points and nodes are used as a standard to measure the change of urban landscape
7. In section 1.2, it should focus on why Bialystok fits as a typical study, rather than simply enumerating.
8. In section 1.3, it was about a reliable measurement of whether it was impoverished or enriched. What is the theoretical basis and source of this sentence?
9. In section 2.2, the reasons for the landmark selection should be explained and emphasized.
10. In section 2.3，why is 300*300yard used to divide the research area, and the reason should be explained
11. The authors should mention the limitations of the research in the discussion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

The English expression in this submission is inconsistent and sometimes quite misleading.  A confusion appears to exist over the meaning of the terms 'qualitative' and 'quantitative'.  I suggest that these terms be clearly explained in the introduction and the particular meanings relevant to this paper.  This again can be re-iterated in the discussion and conclusion.  Likewise the use of the term Genius Loci needs an explanation.; perhaps 'sense of place' may be a more appropriate term. 

In terms of the qualitative aspects of the study, more use should be made of Lynch and Cullen - particularly Cullen.  I recommend  that the 1937 map be used more effectively.   First, that it be enlarged and made clearer; second that a Lynch analysis be overlain as a separate diagram/map; third, that a Cullen Serial Vision analysis of a pertinent area of the 1937 town be graphically undertaken.  This then forms the qualitative benchmark with which to compare the results described in this paper.

The figures explaining the research are very difficult to follow and the captions do not adequately explain the figures.  As well, the legends are incomplete and difficult to discern on the figures.  The maps and figures need more photographs and diagrams to fully explain the results of this study; particularly Figure 7.  

.Landmarks and Nodes need clarification with diagrams. 'Rank' and 'category' need explanation in terms of this study. Similarly 'technical dimension' needs defining.

In general, the paper has the potential to be most interesting if more effective use of Lynch and Cullen is made and the overall graphic communication is significantly improved and enhanced.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Overall, this is an interesting article about Bialystok with potential but I am really not convinced that the method used is needed for the end results. It seems to me that a basic map comparison would have given exactly the same type of conclusions. Insights could have be drawn the same way by a local historian. This is even more reinforced by the lack of rigour in the presentation of the methods. So could I suggest the authors to reinforce their methodology section and clarify its relevance in comparison with other methods (e.g. map comparison, typo morphological analysis). 

The introduction is also a bit messy, going in all direction and it is a bit difficult to understand what is your point and the contextual background to this type of studies.

English needs proofreading and some references are missing here and there.

Please find below some elements to improve

p2line89: the nodes concept is not really introduced and that would need to be strengthen as it is an important concept for the article

p3: maybe introduce also the work of Norberg Shultz after the sentence of Pallasmaa as it would make a kogic continuity

p4 line 164: needs references for the demographic data

p5: Captions for figure 4 & 5 , please revise the 20th or XXth century according to the journal referencing style

p6 line 276-280: there has been none or little explanation on why nodal points are relevant for this study ; this needs to be clarified. Same thing with the criteria of Modern Movement: what are they and do you take all of them, some of them; why not those of post-modernism? etc.

p6 line 286: Lynch method is also about mapping of the city by people so if you don't take this part of his theory, this needs to be specified.

p7 line 300: 'Making a balance of the number and rank of exposition of architectural landmarks' > who makes the balance and based on which criteria? Could it be a problem in English writing? Do you mean 'Assessing' or 'evaluating'? Same thing with #2

line 332: is the criteria for selection the fact that these buildings were not (fully) destroyed ? If so, needs to be better specified and explained why other buildings, such as intact houses, might not have been considered. Also, how this selection does relate to Lynch theory? It needs to be linked.

Figure 7: legends are missing for the coding of the lines in the diagram. If this used Hillier theory, it should also have been explained beforehand.

p10 line 375-394: where does this method come from? DId you create it or is it from someone else? Needs to be clarified.