The Future of City Squares: Robotics in the Urban Design of Tomorrow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of the paper has been greatly improved by the edits made by the authors. In my opinion, the paper can be published as is.

Author Response

Thank you very much for all comments received especially in the first review.

In the new version of the text, the discussion part has been extended and typos have been corrected. In the bibliography, the spelling and formatting were corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of this paper is a big improvement on the original manuscript. The figures and tables add considerable appeal to the article. The Discussion lacks any reference back to the scholarly works in the Introduction. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for all comments received in both the last and the first review.

In the new version of the text, the discussion part has been extended and typos have been corrected. In the bibliography, the spelling and formatting were corrected.

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

General comments

The subject of the manuscript is the presentation of four urban-square design proposals developed by university students in terms of their course. The subject of the article is interesting and the proposed scenarios utilize a number of advanced technological tools. The literature review offers a useful overview of the state of the art. The paper is well written and well analyzed.

The weakness of the article is that the effectiveness of the proposed scenarios has not been evaluated.

 

Specific comments

Introduction

Lines 33-35: the meaning of the sentence is not clear. Please rephrase

Line 40: repeatability of the word ‘where’

Figures 1 and 2 are not mentioned within the text.

Line 45: the meaning of the sentence is not clear. Please rephrase

Lines 50-55: the meaning of the sentence is unclear. Please rephrase

Lines 74-89: This part needs some relevant citations

Line 119: The abbreviations BIM needs to be written in full

Figure 3: Very informative figure but it needs better resolution

Line 167: ‘…aimed at to’ please remove ‘at’

Lines 195 and 196: replace ‘phrases’ with ‘phases’

Line 196: it is mentioned that ‘…the two areas were contributed to ….’ It’s not clear for which areas the text refers to

Materials and methods

I would suggest the addition of a figure to depict the real physical environment of Constitution square at the current layout

Results

The resolution of the figures is low and they are not mentioned within the text

Lines 243-249: In my opinion, the content of these lines would fit better in the ‘methods’ section

Line 270: If I have understood correctly, it is mentioned that the distance between bus stops was to be shortened from about 70m to 20m.  I was wondering if there is any typographical error here since 20m distance sounds too close. In my opinion, 70m distance is already quite close.

Line 282: This part needs some relevant citations

Lines 309-312: The meaning of the sentence is not clear. Please rephrase

Author Response

Thank you very much for your opinion and detailed description of the elements to be improved.

1. The text has been modified with reference to the suggestion in the review.
2. A simplified layout of Constitution Square has been added to the Methods section.
3. In terms of the distance between stops, the idea was to reduce the physical distance and the time needed to pass between stops on the opposite side of the street and to shorten the time needed to cross the road, hence the relatively short distances. This issue has been clarified in the revised text.
4. Illustrations were replaced, where it was possible, with vector files or illustrations of higher resolution, and references to them appeared in the main text.
5. The indicated fragments of the text have been enriched with information about the source data.

Best Regards,

Karolina Dąbrowska-Żółtak

Reviewer 2 Report

Quality and content of the research:

This paper makes a potential contribution to the field of changeable public open space research in the context of Warsaw. If, however, readers are not familiar with Constitution Square, I am not sure there is enough systematic information ie maps or photos to help the journal’s wider audience comprehend the changes being proposed to this site so significant to the authors. There is scope here to demonstrate how the students’ design schemes could be used as exemplars for other design propositions for public spaces elsewhere but as yet the provocation of the work is not yet made clear.

Introduction – This is perhaps the weakest part of the paper. It assumes familiarity with the physical and conceptual context of the work. The research problem is not clear in the opening sentences where the authors quite rightly point out that shared spaces in cities need to be as flexible as possible. The use of ‘productive’ urban space is quite misleading and not, I believe, what the authors mean in this paper. The object of the study ie how architectural spaces can be reconfigured based on transport issues, daily user needs, event programming and climatic concerns, is lost in the detailed narrative of each student group project. These projects could be summarised more concisely and key elements extracted from each project or case.

It would be worthwhile reflecting on what this article is aiming to achieve and then rewrite the introduction.

Methods/ Results – The paper gives sufficient detail regarding how the design projects were set up in class. My suggestion would be to describe the total number of student group projects out of which four of the best were selected and what set them apart. It would be useful to synthesise the key kinetic elements from each or all the projects to allow the authors to explain possible critical aspects for educators or designers to consider regarding changeable public spaces. The images in the manuscript have no acknowledgement of the students who contributed to each project. Table 1 seems to be in the wrong location for a cohesive narrative and appears as an add-on at the end which does not contribute much. A comparative table in the results would be more useful to the reader.

Discussion/Conclusion– The discussion of the kinetic elements proposed in the students’ work are not clearly identified in the results and therefore the paper has little in the way of lessons learnt to compare to the work of others. So what are the take away messages for the reader? The sub section of 4.1 is rather odd given the length of the discussion. It also begs the question of what kinetic ‘model’?

There needs to be a final section that brings together all the threads of the narrative into focusing back on the initial research problem. Can lessons from the students’ propositions be transferred to other places or not?

Quality, appropriate length and clarity of presentation

Length and clarity of the writing is appropriate but the paper needs some rewriting to demonstrate new knowledge in the field of changing public open spaces.

There are quite a few grammatical errors which should be corrected for improved flow.

Significance, relevance and timeliness of the topic (novelty and interest)

Currently, the paper does have the potential to contribute to our understanding flexible public spaces. I would however like to see the work to go further in suggesting that kinetic public spaces should be considered in the future design of our cities.

Appeal to the readership of Land journal

This paper should appeal to a design-oriented readership interested in the public realm.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your opinion and detailed description of the elements to be improved.

1. The text contains changes relating to the suggestion in the review, to the extent that could be implemented in a given time.
2. A simplified layout of Constitution Square has been added to the Methods section.
3. A table has been added that summarizes all the described projects. And the table relating to the use of digital data has been moved to the end of Results.
4. Illustrations were replaced, where it was possible, with vector files or illustrations of higher resolution, and references to them appeared in the main text.
5. The text has been enriched with additional source data.
6. In the acknowledgements note, all students whose projects were presented were named, and divided into teams in which they worked.

Best Regards, 

Karolina Dąbrowska-Żółtak