Preservation of Abandoned Historic Centres—The Case of Poggioreale antica (Sicily)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with a topic of interest for the themes of the journal and in particular for those of the special issue. The research is well structured, the article is well organized and written and it presents clearly the outputs of the research; however, the article has some linguistic imperfections, which seem to result from a too literal translation from Italian; it should be reviewed by a native English speaker experienced in architecture.

In addition to this, it seems to me that the article does not sufficiently analyze what are the differences between an ancient archaeological site and the case study. Indeed the authors write: «In this sense, the idea that seems to recall the situation of Poggioreale today is closer to that of large archaeological sites (think of the excavations of Pompeii or ancient Ostia) where interventions of securing and restoration coexist to allow not only to enjoy the places but also, in part, to experience the life that took place there» (lines 363-367). However, the situation in Poggioreale is quite different. In fact, in the case of the vast archaeological parks of Pompeii and Ostia we are dealing with ancient inhabited nuclei and, therefore, with ways of life radically different from the current ones and not otherwise knowable, if not through the facilitation of reading and interpreting the archaeological remains; in this case, on the other hand, there are numerous villages (even not far from the site in question) which have undergone limited transformations in recent decades and which bear witness to the lifestyle of the time with their architecture, better than Poggioreale could ever do, unless carrying out ahistorical stylistic reconstructions. Therefore, «the possibility of a philological intervention aimed at reconstructing the profile of the built-up area by re-proposing – for the understanding of visitors – sidewalks and rising walls, also replicating the position of the accesses» (lines 379-381), hypothesized by the authors, seems not only useless, but also harmful; at the most, only for the blocks of which the planimetric layout is no longer perceived, technical solutions could be developed to highlight the layout of the walls of the buildings. Indeed, what the site can testify with great power are the events connected to the destruction caused by the earthquake and those due to prolonged abandonment after the forced transfer of the inhabitants. In this case, any reconstruction would take away the expressiveness – and therefore the attractiveness – of the site.

Finally, in figure 10 it’s not clear what the hatched areas represent. They probably represent piles of rubble and vegetation, however in the absence of a legend it is impossible to be certain.

The article has some linguistic imperfections, which seem to result from a too literal translation from Italian; it should be reviewed by a native English speaker experienced in architecture.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their thorough reading of the article and valuable suggestions to improve some unclear points.

The revisions are highlighted in red in the updated version of the manuscript and the points of interest are summarised below.

1) As for the differences between the archaeological sites and the case study of Poggioreale, we wish to point out that our design idea is essentially aimed at highlighting the way of life that was abruptly interrupted by the earthquake in 1968 and that, in our opinion, is substantially far removed from the current one. In this sense, we imagine the site as a future contemporary archaeological park.

Interventions should in no way propose ‘ahistorical stylistic reconstructions’, as the reviewer rightly remarks, but only allow people access to as many areas as possible, and, where possible, to enter homes and enjoy a more comprehensive experience than one could have just by walking through the streets.

2) Anyway, we agree with the reviewer on the ambiguity of the following sentence:

‘… reflection is needed on the possibility of a philological intervention aimed at reconstructing the profile of the built-up area by re-proposing – for the understanding of visitors – sidewalks and rising walls, also replicating the position of the accesses’

and accept her/his suggestion by revising it as follows:

‘… there is a need to consider the possibility of a philological intervention aimed at developing technical solutions to highlight the layout of the walls of the buildings’.

For the sake of clarity, we also removed the next somewhat obscure sentence (‘Thus, the theme of urban legibility is strictly related to additional issues, first and foremost that of the construction methods to be used for the mentioned interventions’).

3) We corrected the legend of figure 10, adding the missing symbol.

4) We had the paper read by a native English speaker and asked him to address long or awkward, or clumsy sentences particularly.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting essay about an abandoned village in Sicily. It is a very descriptive account of the state of the buildings in the village plus an account of the research project that is mapping the area. The account of the research is thorough, and the description of the preservation and mitigation works is very interesting. 

 

There is little theoretical discussion. 

 

The abstract mentions the possibility of the ruins being ‘brought back to memory in a different form’ (line 20). This is not further discussed. The adoration of the ruin, and the 21^st century fascination with the idea of the memories and heritage that are inherently held within a ruin are not mentioned again.

 

Part 2 discusses the relocation of the village. There is little empathy with the urgency of the situation, the time and prevailing attitude, the poverty of the inhabitants, and the substantial damage. The move was compatible with the Government development plan for Southern Italy, but this is confusingly described as inconsistent (line 123). There is just one unsubstantiated and unelaborated sentence about the impact of the move (line 104): ‘… deepening the population’s loss of identity that the earthquake had already caused.’

 

The conclusion is short. I think that the final sentence (lines 419-423) suggests that the objective of the research is to establish a conservation plan for the village to become a destination for visitors. If this is the aim, then there should be some greater clarity about this.  

 

The images are not credited. This is especially important given that the authors state that access to the site is forbidden (line 147).

 

The quality of English is just about adequate; the quality of translation does mean that some of the sentence structures are extremely awkward; for example, the sentence that spans lines 414 to 417. There are also many extremely long sentences that meander and change focus during their length; for example, the sentence that spans lines 368 to 372 is very difficult to understand. A number of times the translation is clumsy and indistinct, for example line 161 states that piazza Elimo is entered sideways, and line 173, describes the telescope that is produced.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their thorough reading of the article and valuable suggestions to improve some unclear points.

The revisions are highlighted in red in the updated version of the manuscript and the points of interest are summarised below.

1) We improved the background of our research in the Introduction and extended the number of references.

2) In the reviewer’s opinion the possibility of the ruins being ‘brought back to memory in a different form’ (line 20 of the old manuscript’s abstract) is not further discussed. This aspect is discussed further on, lines 356-374 of the old manuscript, where the analogy between Poggioreale and archaeological sites is proposed to use the settlement as an open-air museum, considering any hypothesis of reuse and re-functionalisation unfeasible.

3) As for the relocation of the village, the issue that has emerged from our research is that the choice was guided by reasons other than the severity of the damage felt in Poggioreale.

Anyway, we agree with the reviewer about the impact of the move (line 104 of the old manuscript) and removed the sentence:

'... deepening the population's loss of identity that the earthquake had already caused.'

4) We specified all the figures’ sources.

5) We revised the Conclusions, trying to make clearer the final sentence (lines 419-423 of the old manuscript).

6) We had the paper read by a native English speaker and asked him to address long or awkward, or clumsy sentences particularly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Enjoyed reading it. 

Any future activity shall maintain structural stability as well as the traditional character of town.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their thorough reading of the article and valuable suggestions to improve some unclear points.

The revisions are highlighted in red in the updated version of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a strong, well researched, well written paper, with an appropriate research methodology and good conclusions. The amendments have reinforced the paper, addressed the deficiencies, and strengthened the argument.