The Self-Organizing City and the Architecture of Metabolism: An Architectural Critique on Urban Growth and Reorganization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Page 1, Line 15,16: Instead of using numbering like (1) and (2), sequence could be mentioned like ‘firstly’, ‘secondly’ or ‘first’, ‘second’ etc.

Page 1, Line 19, 20: The term ‘first part’ & ‘second part’ is not clear in anywhere of the structure of the paper.

Page 1: One of the main purpose of introduction is to introduce the story to the reader in a simple & readable way. Introduction might also include objectives, significance, and theoretical background prior to address method. Supporting theoretical frameworks could be organised in a table (mentioning theorists, theory, method used etc.) format so that reader can get a quick glance. The flow of the story should be maintained throughout the paper.

List of typologies could also be mentioned in a table in a similar way to the theoretical format. (see Table1, Page 4, Swapan, A., Bay, J., & Marinova, D. (2018). Built Form and Community Building in Residential Neighbourhoods: A Case Study of Physical Distance in Subiaco, Western Australia. Sustainability, 10(6), 1703.)

Page 1, Line 37: “[4].The” need space; “features[1,5,6]” need space

Page 1, Line 39, 40, 41: needs editing (font style, size, line spacing?).

Page 2: Method needs enough references. A flow chart (see Swapan, Bay & Marinova, 2018) might be used to clarify how the investigation has been conducted. Data collection method should also be clearly explained with appropriate reference. There is no sign of reference in the entire method section which is seriously weakened the argument of the paper. Significance of the methodology is also very important.  

Page 2, Line 49: The word "modern" needs clarification and referencing. Does it refer to 'modern movement'?

Page 2, Line 55, 56: Needs reference for "self-containing notion......unnoticed"

Page 2, Line 60-64: “In the context… … urban design.” needs reference

Page 2, Line 89: “Rapid urban growth” needs to inform and referenced.

Page 2, Line 94: “the” needs formatting (font style, size).

Page 3, Line 95: “study acts to provide a theoretical base for providing means to the concept of self-organizing resilient cities from an architectural critique.” needs formatting (font style, size, line spacing etc.).

Page 3, Line 97, 100: “first part” and “second part” need to indicate relevent sections like- first part (see section 1.11, 2.22 etc.)

Page 3, Line 111-112: Is it required to underline?

Page 3, Line 113-134: needs formatting (font style, size, line spacing etc.)

Page 7, Line 268: There are other examples of rural-urban migration which could also be mentioned & referenced.

Page 7, Line 78, 83, 88: References (30, 31, 32) require proper sequencing like

Page 7, Line 296: References need to be in sequence?[28,35,36]

Page 7, Line 298: Space required “[11,37].Cities”

Future indication of the research might be added after result and before conclusion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes how Metabolism could support self-organizing cities. The topic is widely described by architecture theories, thus, authors need to emphasize the novelty in this study (new findings, new perspectives or new influences). The paper contains a very dense theoretical study, many terms and expressions are introduced throughout the text. It could benefit from editing and concentrating on the two main aspects referred on the abstract: resilience and self-organizing system. 

On lines 192 and 290: although this analogy is commonly used, cities are not living organisms. One could say that certain structures of cities (or cities themselves) behave as self-organizing systems.

Line 604: Is that true? Contemporary cities have challenges and opportunities that are completely different from the 1960`s, especially in terms of social structures.

Line 610: Cities can and are viewed as a process, but they are build and consumed as a product. This dichotomy is not resolved by this paper.

The conclusion should focus on answering the questions proposed on the beginning of the paper.

Table 2 is not a table, but a diagram. It also has incomprehensible text.

Grammar and ortography needs to be thoroughly revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

 Unfortunately, the English expression is so poor in this submission that it is difficult to understand what the author is trying to say.

The subject and parts of the content look interesting and relevant but the paper needs a complete rewrite with an English-speaking editor

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Several improvements were done in the paper, which shows that the authors have knowledge in the topic, thus helping with the research contextualization.

Still, the aim and the hypothesis seem to be disconnected from the research method and conclusions.

Even with the revision I found some errors regarding orthography.  

I wonder if would be helpful if the list of references is shorter, for instance, the authors refer to a Master Thesis; reference 66 links to researchgate, etc.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This resubmission is a great improvement.  The concepts and arguments can now be understood. 

It is an interesting review of past practices and their potential relevance to today's cities.

attached are some suggested expressoin edits

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors.

Thanks for working on improving the paper.

The whole text needs to be thoroughly reviewed. There are minor mistakes such as on Table 1: "A cities as" to inadmissible mistakes such as naming architect Kenzo Tange as Kange (line 354).

These problems weakens the paper.  I will not point in this review the mistakes I've found.

I don't believe you can conclude based on your findings the lines 575-581.

You need to address your aim on the conclusion, if you cannot answer with your research, you have to be explicit about it.