Modern Details in Meaningful Architecture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Line 90, paragraph 1, should be “Frei Otto” and not “Otto Frei”
- Line 91, paragraph 1, should be “…was materialized by Frei Otto…” or “…was materialized by Otto…” and not “…was materialized by Frei…”
- Line 92, paragraph 1, should be “…solutions, Frei Otto imitated …” or “…solutions, Otto imitated …” and not “…solutions, Frei imitated…”
- Line 123, paragraph 2, the author Daniel Libeskind is not referred in the bibliography
- Line 146, paragraph 2, is it really “i.a.” that you want to write? Is not “e.g.”?
- Lines 170-176, paragraph 2: some parts of figure 2 are separated, please put it as a single figure.
- Line 179, paragraph 2, source of Figure 2 caption: the authors state that the source of this figure is a study elaborated by them. If so, why is this study not referenced in the paragraphs above, lines 143-169 and, consequently, in the bibliography?
- Line 231, paragraph 3, the author Jean-Antoine-Gabriel Davioud is not referred in the bibliography
- Paragraph 3.1, figure 4 is not referred in the previous text
- Paragraph 3.1 is a case study, there are no conclusions to support the title of the paragraph.
- Paragraph 3: the article is intended to be generalist, but paragraph 3 is the presentation of a case study. It is not explicit in the text that authors would present a case study.
- Line 336, paragraph 3.2, figure 5: should be “based on [20]” and not “based by [20]”
- Paragraph 4.1: figure 6a is not referred in the previous text. In fact, fig. 6b is referred in line 405, but fig. 6a is not referred above
- Line 421, paragraph 4.1, figure 6 caption: the source of fig.6b) is said “original freehand sketch”, but who is the artist? The artist, who draw that sketch is the source. The same in line 458, paragraph 4.2, figure 7b caption. Please confirm all the figures which have this case.
- Line 467, paragraph 4.2, in figure 8 why there are an a) if there is not a b)?
- Paragraph 4.3: figure 9a is not referred in the previous text. In fact, fig. 9b is referred in line 482, but fig. 9a is not referred above, only in line 492. Maybe it's better to swap figures a and b in figure 9, so you don't need to change the references in the text.
- Lines 513-514, table 1: there’s no source.
- Lines 513, table 1: this table is not referred in the previous text
Most bibliography is more than 5 years old or more than 10 years old. Only 3 sources are less than 5 years old and the most recent is from 2020. It is advisable to look for most recent bibliography to reinforce the current nature of the work.
The article does not have the structure of a scientific work: it has no methodology, no discussion, no results... It looks more like an architecture class than a scientific paper.
The transition between the description of historic buildings and the description of bionics is a little abrupt
The concept of bionic includes the functions of natural structures, not just shapes: while the roof support structure at Stuttgart airport is bionic, since the shape of trees is studied to be able to sustain a large area of coverage by taking advantage of the angle between the trunks of a tree in Nature, there are doubts about the question of the Oriente Railway Station in Lisbon, where the Nature-inspired structure did not take advantage of the functions existing in natural environment. The authors highlight the forms rather than the functions of the examples presented. Simply imitating Nature's forms is not bionic, is more biomophism. This point needs to be clarified.
For those who only read the abstract, the introduction and the conclusions, the question of a case study referred to only in the conclusions can lead to some confusion. In fact, no case study is explicit or referred to, neither in the abstract nor in the introduction, implying that it is a generalist article and not the presentation of a case study. Thus, it is not clear whether the content of chapter 1, 2 and beginning of 3 is to serve as an introduction to the case study or whether the case study is to illustrate what is described in chapter 1, 2 and beginning of 3. This does not invalidate the fact that this is an interesting and meaningful case study.
Author Response
Thank You for all valuable comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The argument the authors put forward about details and relationship to the overall architectural and urban composition is a very good one and is developed through the review of related literature and buildings. This could potentially an interesting and valuable research contribution.
However, I would suggest that before publication a few things need to be added to the article to align with academic research conventions.
- Most importantly, what is the methodology? I could not find that section in the article. This needs to be clarified and a methodology section added. It could be included in the introduction.
- Related to the methodology, it would be good to set up more clearly what the question or inquiry is that the paper is answering through the methodology. This will then help to evaluate the conclusion and if it has managed to respond to this inquiry.
The title is slightly strange in terms of its use of English and does not sound correct. I would suggest something like: 'Modern Details for Meaningful Architecture'. 'Modern Details in Meaningful Architecture' is also possible.
Author Response
Thank You for all valuable comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract does not clearly introduce/mention the aim of this paper and what methods are used to achieve it. The methodology is also vague, contributing little information for someone who wants to understand how they did their study or why these particular results were obtained in such contrast ways from previous studies on similar topics
The contributions to the existing knowledge in this field are not clear.
The title suggests modern details in the meaningful architecture but there is this sudden jump in 3.1 to discussing the search of meanings in the context of urban planning.
In section 4, it is not clear why the authors focused on these particular features of equality, accessibility, transparency, community, moderation, and identity. Are they identified by current reviews of literature? If yes, this should be included and clarified in their paper as it will help with understanding what kind of research has been done to identify those.
Also, it is not clear why only three out of the six features were explored in detail. The other three features (equality, accessibility, and transparency) are then identified in the summery table 1.A
Author Response
Thank You for all valuable comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Art and technology are anticipatory to good architectural design.
It is important to remind the scientific and artistic community every once in a while on the importance of synergetic and meaningful design that also transcodes traditionally inherited forms and technical solutions into a contemporary design. Thus ensuring the sustainability of architectural design techniques.
This manuscript deals with this issue through a concrete case analysis. It sets the context in the first part very well, then the case building is analysed.
1.
It seems that a short discussion chapter would make a better completion that would clear up any uncertainties, any lackings of the method, indicate disadvantages or any other uncovered aspects that might not be applicable or doable in this or other cases, or that might change its meaning otherwise etc?
This would make the opportunity to compare this case analysis to any other similar analysis.
2.
Please check the filename path for reference 4. It is given as a path to a local file on someone's drive - it seems like that - perhaps this link to the repository is the same and more fitting for referencing: https://repozytorium.biblos.pk.edu.pl/redo/resources/33667/file/suwFiles/PluskaI_LatCegielnictwa.pdf
instead of:
file:///C:/Users/prac/Downloads/PluskaI_LatCegielnictwa.pdf
3.
Please verify that you have the copyright for every photo you used.
Sincerely.
Author Response
Thank You for all valuable comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- Line 656, paragraph 5, in the paragraph’s title, should be “5. Discussion” and not “4. Disscusion”
- Line 660-662, paragraph 5, is the text in bold?
Thank you for the changes you made. Keep up the good work.
Author Response
Thank you for Your insight in reviewing the article and for all valuable comments.
Ad. 1
I have changed the numer of chapter "Discussion" and corrected the linguistic error.
Ad. 2
I corrected the formatting style (bold) for the indicated sentence.
