Intelligence-Based Design Illustrated with Examples of ACROS Fukuoka, KKL Luzern and MICA Changsha Buildings—A Multicriterial Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See comments attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer's comments can be found in the WORD file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting article and it has a lot of potential, using the subject of smart / intelligence into architecture.

However, it has important issues on structure and argumentation. For example, in lines 34-38, architecture research, human intelligence, intelligence-based design, and smart cities do not show what they mean and why they are together in these sentences – explanation is needed.

There is some description of smart cities in lines 75-77, but this appears to be an assumption as there is no reference and appears quite vague, for examplebut not more complicated?’

Similar to lines 90-91 what is the connection of smart cities to smart buildings?

I think the approach of using buildings for case studies is really good. It should also be enhanced using a robust and critical methodology. For example, lines 129-132, the criteria in which the case studies are examined, need to be clearly listed. Then, this list of criteria should be repeated in each case study to examine if the case study reaches these criteria.

At the moment, there is a lot of information in each case study that is taken from sources and provides a description to the case study, not with a critical approach. For example, paragraph ‘Architect and the concept’ lines 184-205 contains information that does not match the criteria (of a smart, intelligent-based design). Surely, historical information does not add to a critical approach. I think the case study should limit that and focus on the fulfillment or not of the criteria.

The discussion section (and this should really be a results section) needs to provide a comparison of the criteria. If the graphic comparison is used, what are the learnings from this? How does graphics or shape relate to the smart / intelligence etc? Similar for Table 3 – what can we learn of this comparison, does location affect the smart / intelligence, or year, or music, festivals, etc? Also, what is the difference between discussion and conclusion? Please present your results and discussions in a clear and coherent manner.

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer's comments can be found in the WORD file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper provides an interesting read regarding multicriterial case study of three buildings around the world. The literature search was used to identify commonalities in answering questions pertaining to why it is important to used intelligent-based design at the design stage. There are some findings identified and categorised in tables 2 and 3, however, there are some few suggestions regarding the improvement of the paper:

• There is too much use of quotations throughout the text If the authors can paraphrase these quotations in their own words, it will reduce the similarity index. For instance, there is no need to put Salle Blanche in quotes (Line 422).
• Please review the manuscript for quotations that were opened and not closed.
• Throughout the text, there are different font colours which seems some texts were copied from another source. Please provide some formatting overview of the manuscript. An example is line 39-30.
• In reference to section 2.2, there is a need to describe the processes involved in the multicriteria case study design. How were the texts reviewed and what did you look at when analysing the various building? Provide more details.
• The style of referencing must be consistent with the recommended guideline. The reference list at the end must be improved.
• Section 2.2 has a multicriterial case study and it was repeated in section 3.1. The result section lists out the various results since we already have a multicriterial case study in section 2.2.
• Line 672 has a footnote ‘Graphic processed by…”. This is not necessary as long as you have a reference at the top caption for Table 3.
• From section 3.1.1, where we have ‘city and the problem’ as a heading provide a numbering system for this heading and all other subsequent headings.

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewer's comments can be found in the WORD file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

N/A

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for the annotation regarding the text and previous comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

There is no reference to the way smart cities are defined. For example, what is common between traffic and functional structures? It needs a literature evidence. Again, comments which were made before are not addressed here. For example 'intelligence-based design' shows no relation to the smart, also intelligence-based design signifies is not defined. This is confusing. Smart is not one of the criteria, but intelligence-based design signifies - is there a reason for this? it seems smart is part of the research questions - also why are there so many research questions? Another comment which was not addressed is why there is so much information on the architect / background info on the buildings, this is not justified and it does not add to the results. Research questions should not be repeated in Section 5 Conclusions How are the conclusions important and what do we learn from these? In general, the manuscript should provide evidence (literature review for smart / intelligence) and not base the research on assumptions. Results need to provide how these are proven and not just describing opinions.

Author Response

The response to the Reviewer's comments is contained in the Word file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf