Revitalization of Residential Buildings Dating Back to the Late 19th and Early 20th Century on the Example of “Willa Halina” in Sopot (Poland)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The author considers the nkowledge of the technical condition of the building as the first step to take (line 83); while this is obviously a very important matter, the composite, historical and functional knowledge of the building is just as important. Later in the paper, it is clear that the author has performed these studies, but I think that it is important to state it clearly at this point.
• Section 2. Materials and methods includes several phrases already included in the paper and provides no new information.
• Line 171-172: I would thank further explanation to this "exchange of society".
• Section 4. Contemporary investment and revitalization activities in Sopot. I recommend introducing more examples or, at least, one example of extension with cubature elements in order to know better the background to the work developed by the author.
• A further explanation of the studies performed prior to the intervention is needed in a case study as this.
• I recommend an extensive editing of the text by a native English speaker
• Check these references:
• line 41: name the authors ("by" instead of "in") or title of the texts (1,2)
• line 53: same as above (4,5)
• line 61: same as above (6)
• line 77: same as above (10-16) or rephrase ("in several publications")
• line 81: same as above (19,20)
• line 85: same as above (22,23)
• line 302: same as above (34, 35, 36)
• line 305: same as above (37, 38)
• line 313: same as above (39, 40, 41)

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you very much to the Reviewer for all the valuable questions and comments that allowed me to greatly improve the article.
I am convinced that the corrections made have significantly increased the scientific value of the article.
Below are detailed responses to the Reviewer's questions and comments:
Point 1: The author considers the nkowledge of the technical condition of the building as the first step to take (line 83); while this is obviously a very important matter, the composite, historical and functional knowledge of the building is just as important. Later in the paper, it is clear that the author has performed these studies, but I think that it is important to state it clearly at this point.
Response 1: It is added (line 83) that at the beginning of revitalization activities, in addition to examining the technical condition of the building, historical and functional aspects should also be taken into account.
Point 2: Section 2. Materials and methods includes several phrases already included in the paper and provides no new information.
Response 2: Section 2. (Materials and methods) introduced new additional information about the materials and research methods used to prepare the article.
Point 3: Line 171-172: I would thank further explanation to this "exchange of society".
Response 3: The exchange of society described in the original version of the text in lines 171-172 resulted from the fact that at the end of the war almost all pre-war inhabitants of Sopot, who were of German nationality, fled from the Red Army approaching from the east and never returned to Sopot, leaving there their houses, cemeteries, places of worship and everything connected with culture in the broadest sense of the word. This clarification was incorporated into the body of the article.
Point 4: Section 4. Contemporary investment and revitalization activities in Sopot. I recommend introducing more examples or, at least, one example of extension with cubature elements in order to know better the background to the work developed by the author. A further explanation of the studies performed prior to the intervention is needed in a case study as this.
Response 4: Section 4. (Contemporary investment and revitalization activities in Sopot) examples of architecture were added to better illustrate the background of the work.
Point 5: I recommend an extensive editing of the text by a native English speaker
Response 5: The text of the article has been proofread by a native English speaker.
Point 6: Check these references:
line 41: name the authors ("by" instead of "in") or title of the texts (1,2)
line 53: same as above (4,5)
line 61: same as above (6)
line 77: same as above (10-16) or rephrase ("in several publications")
line 81: same as above (19,20)
line 85: same as above (22,23)
line 302: same as above (34, 35, 36)
line 305: same as above (37, 38)
line 313: same as above (39, 40, 41)
Response 6: The names of the authors of publications included in the bibliography are not given in the text because according to Bulildings guidelines, only the number of the bibliographic item in square brackets should be given in the text. If the case concerns several publications then, according to the Buildings guidelines, the numbers from the bibliography should be given, separated by a hyphen, e. g. (10-16).
Once again, thank you very much to the Reviewer for your valuable comments and for taking the trouble to read and review the article. I managed to incorporate all of the Reviewer's remarks into the revised text and the corrections were an interesting scientific adventure for me

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research theme is extremely topical and well developed with reference to both the case study and the reference regulatory framework. The focus on the  building revitalization and reconstruction of the historic residential buildings of Sopot is very interesting for the choice of elements to replace the damaged ones. It  presupposes a deep knowledge of the analyzed architecture and the process followed highlights an approach that links the tangible and intangible values ​​of architecture and the city.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The research theme is extremely topical and well developed with reference to both the case study and the reference regulatory framework. The focus on the building revitalization and reconstruction of the historic residential buildings of Sopot is very interesting for the choice of elements to replace the damaged ones. It presupposes a deep knowledge of the analysed architecture and the process followed highlights an approach that links the tangible and intangible values of architecture and the city.
Response 1: Thank you very much to the Reviewer for such a positive opinion about my article and words of praise. These words, coming from a high-class specialist, are of great importance to me for further research work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper refers to the rehabilitation and energy retrofit of modern architecture. The reference to the docomomo is missed. This important institution is dedicated to modern architecture, so some references for their concepts for the rehabilitation of modern architecture could be interesting. The paper is a case study, not a research paper. Some references to the restoration of buildings from the modern movement can be helpful to define the scientific criteria di died by the scientific community. I would suggest: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10090159, doi:10.3390/su5093895 and https://www.eaae.be/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/EAAE_58_book_4mar2013.pdf. You can add some modern ideas, and this ass their application in your study. Conclusions, must be improved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you very much to the Reviewer for all the valuable questions and comments that allowed me to greatly improve the article.
I am convinced that the corrections made have significantly increased the scientific value of the article.
Below are detailed responses to the Reviewer's questions and comments:
Point 1: The paper refers to the rehabilitation and energy retrofit of modern architecture. The reference to the docomomo is missed. This important institution is dedicated to modern architecture, so some references for their concepts for the rehabilitation of modern architecture could be interesting. The paper is a case study, not a research paper. Some references to the restoration of buildings from the modern movement can be helpful to define the scientific criteria di died by the scientific community. I would suggest: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10090159, doi:10.3390/su5093895 and https://www.eaae.be/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/EAAE_58_book_4mar2013.pdf. You can add some modern ideas, and this ass their application in your study. Conclusions, must be improved.
Response 1: The article refers to revitalization of residential buildings dating back to the late 19th and early 20th century, but not the one realized on the basis of ideas of modern movement, but eclectic architecture, which is a romantic combination of all neo styles, often with an admixture of a large dose of regional elements, which today have already gained a status of monuments. Therefore, the references in this article are to ICOMOS (and not DOCOMOMO) and specifically to the fundamental document produced by ICOMOS, the Venice Charter.
Revitalization of Villa Halina in Sopot, which is a contribution to scientific considerations in the article, is an example of linking historical architecture (in this case eclectic) with contemporary architecture, implemented in the twenty-first century. Therefore, it is extremely important to comply with international standards of historic preservation, including the provisions of the Venice Charter, which state, among other things, that all new elements built into historic architecture must be distinguishable from the original, so as not to falsify the artistic or historical testimony.
Of course, as the Reviewer rightly pointed out, some references to the renovation of buildings from the modernism period may be helpful in the research. Therefore, the article was supplemented by references to the Reviewer's proposed publication, "The Architectural Practice of Regeneration" (doi:10. 3390/su5093895).
Since the article as mentioned earlier refers to eclectic architecture of the late 19th and early 20th century, therefore the conclusions are left unchanged.
Once again, thank you very much to the Reviewer for your valuable comments and for taking the trouble to read and review the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

General comment.
The article addresses the role of built heritage in urban regeneration processes and towards the goal of sustainability. Then it illustrates the restructuring of Willa Halina carried out according to the author's plan.
The two parts are interesting and also enjoyable to read. However, their theoretical connection, which the author hinges on the reference to the Venice Charter of 1964, is of very little significance and even misleading because the situation of Sopot is very far from the historical and theoretical framework where the Venice Charter was written.
I suggest the author remove this link and replace it with a comparative examination of international documents that have dealt with the built heritage spread over the last 50 years, especially its social role, such as the European Convention of Faro.
Furthermore:
- the scientific method underlying the structure of this text is not clear
- it is not clear what the scientific contribution of this article is, apart from the presentation of the project on Willa Alina
- there is too poor a discussion on the nature of the buildings being studied and designed: are they only historic buildings, or are they subject to safeguarding and legal protection? What relationship with the authority for monuments at the national and municipal level?
- the analysis activity of the building is presented only briefly, thus contradicting the strong risk in this direction contained in article 9 of the Venice Charter.
The heuristic content of the choices is not clear, and the author has adopted the new project, particularly the desire to distinguish the newly built parts from those already existing.

91 this instead of thise

95-97 the Carter of Venice deals more with principles than with standards of conservation. It is not clear how the Willa Alina case should fit with those principles

99 spatial and technical solutions: need to clarify

124-128 with the use of such method: need to clarify. Which method? contemporary analysis of the investment + (self) analysis of the author's own design appears as a quite poor scientific method

151-153 check English

184: not only the Venice Charter is consistent with the aim of the paper. see at least the Amsterdam document (1975) and the Faro Convention. The author could provide a comparative analysis of these documents for the purposes of the paper.

189-108 no need to list the full articles, better to summarize according to a previous suggestion

216 need to mention the Charter of Krakow on this point

241 here and elsewhere: the role of the monument office is not clear, nor the legal status of these historic buildings. Ar they listed or elsewhere legally protected? if yes, how? What consequences for the restoration design?

If Willa Halina is the very core of the argumentation, I would say that:

272 very poor historical description (see Venice charter art. 9)

279 lack of decay and structural analysis

299 In consultation with the conservation services a  decision was made. Heed to present the results of this discussion, and to clarify each role and responsibility (see above)

302 [34,35,36] there is nearly no connection between these references and the paper's contents

350-353: the issue of energy-saving and windows deterioration is not enough discussed. The sentence: "but in a way that clearly shows the contemporary time of its construction" is unclear.

373 see above

414-421: this paragraph introduces a great issue and needs to be further developed and better discussed

438-458: the connection of Willa Halina refurbishment/restoration with the historical and theoretical aim of the Venice Charter appears very poor.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much to the Reviewer for all the valuable questions and comments that allowed me to greatly improve the article.
I am convinced that the corrections made have significantly increased the scientific value of the article.
Below are detailed responses to the Reviewer's questions and comments:
Point 1: General comment.
The article addresses the role of built heritage in urban regeneration processes and towards the goal of sustainability. Then it illustrates the restructuring of Willa Halina carried out according to the author's plan.
The two parts are interesting and also enjoyable to read. However, their theoretical connection, which the author hinges on the reference to the Venice Charter of 1964, is of very little significance and even misleading because the situation of Sopot is very far from the historical and theoretical framework where the Venice Charter was written.
I suggest the author remove this link and replace it with a comparative examination of international documents that have dealt with the built heritage spread over the last 50 years, especially its social role, such as the European Convention of Faro.
Response 1: As the reviewer rightly pointed out, the article deals with the role of cultural heritage in urban revitalisation processes and therefore, at his suggestion, references to international legal regulations concerning this heritage, such as the Charter of Krakow (2000) and the Faro Convention (2005) were introduced into the article. However, the references to the Venice Charter (1964) have not been removed from the text as, in the author's opinion, it constitutes an excellent basis for any further international achievements and legal regulations in the field of cultural heritage protection. In the preamble to the Charter of Krakow we even read that: „Acting in the spirit of the Charter of Venice, taking note of the international recommendations and urged on by the process of European unification, at the turn of the new millennium, we are conscious of living within such a framework, in which identities, in an ever more extensive context, are becoming characterised and more distinct”.
Sopot's situation is very close to the historical and theoretical framework in which the Venice Charter was written, because it was at that time, in the 1950s and 1960s, that the directions for reconstruction and revitalisation after war damage of many European cities, including Sopot, were decided. The compliance of this reconstruction and revalorization with the principles of Venice Charter allowed avoiding many mistakes and allows avoiding them still today. It can be said that the provisions of Venice Charter constitute a kind of "foundation" on which all subsequent legal regulations concerning protection of cultural heritage are based.
Point 2: The scientific method underlying the structure of this text is not clear
Response 2: In Section 2. (Materials and methods) additional explanations concerning the scientific method underlying the structure of the article have been included.
Point 3: It is not clear what the scientific contribution of this article is, apart from the presentation of the project on Willa Alina
Response 3: The scientific contribution of the article is a discussion concerning the ways of approaching the protection of material cultural assets with particular emphasis on valuable residential buildings from the turn of the 19th and 20th century. The presentation of the revitalization project of Willa Halina, on the other hand, is an attempt to show the practical implementation of scientific findings. According to the author of the article, scientific research in the field of urban planning, architecture and protection of
broadly understood cultural environment makes sense only if its results can be verified in practical actions.
Point 4: There is too poor a discussion on the nature of the buildings being studied and designed: are they only historic buildings, or are they subject to safeguarding and legal protection? What relationship with the authority for monuments at the national and municipal level?
Response 4: Section 2. (Materials and Methods) was extended by information concerning the character of the examined buildings, their legal protection, and the relations of investors and designers with conservation services.
Point 5: The analysis activity of the building is presented only briefly, thus contradicting the strong risk in this direction contained in article 9 of the Venice Charter. The heuristic content of the choices is not clear, and the author has adopted the new project, particularly the desire to distinguish the newly built parts from those already existing.
Response 5: The decision to distinguish the newly built part of Villa Halina from the historic part, in the opinion of the author of the article, is the right one and completely in line with the spirit of Article 9 of the Venice Charter, which states that: ". . any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the historical, architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp".
Point 6: 91 this instead of thise
Response 6: In the line 91 (line number from the version of the text before corrections) "this" was entered instead of "thise"
Point 7: 95-97 the Carter of Venice deals more with principles than with standards of conservation. It is not clear how the Willa Alina case should fit with those principles
Response 7: The Venice Charter, especially in Articles 9, 10, and 12 mentioned in the manuscript, deals with the principles of historic preservation, placing particular emphasis on distinguishing historic from new elements. The revitalization process of Willa Halina refers precisely to these principles.
Point 8: 99 spatial and technical solutions: need to clarify
Response 8: In the line 99 (line number from the version of the text before corrections) it has been added that it concerns spatial and technical solutions which will allow for easy exposition of historical elements of the building and their clear distinction from the newly designed ones.
Point 9: 124-128 with the use of such method: need to clarify. Which method? contemporary analysis of the investment + (self) analysis of the author's own design appears as a quite poor scientific method
Response 9: In the lines 124-128 (line numbers from the version of the text before corrections) the description of the scientific methods was changed and expanded.
Point 10: 151-153 check English
Response 10: In the lines 151-153 (line numbers from the version of the text before corrections) English was checked by a native speaker.
Point 11: 184: Not only the Venice Charter is consistent with the aim of the paper. see at least the Amsterdam document (1975) and the Faro Convention. The author could provide a comparative analysis of these documents for the purposes of the paper.
Response 11: References to international legal regulations on the protection of cultural heritage, such as the Krakow Charter (2000) and the Faro Convention (2005) have been introduced into the article ( in Section 4).
Point 12: 189-108 no need to list the full articles, better to summarize according to a previous suggestion
Response 12: The author decided to quote the full content of articles 9, 10 and 12 of Venice Charter, as extremely important for understanding the intentions that guided him while creating the project of revitalization of Villa Halina and working on the article.
Point 13: 216 need to mention the Charter of Krakow on this point
Response 13: In the line 216 (line number from the version of the text before corrections) now refers to the Charter of Krakow.
Point 14: 241 here and elsewhere: the role of the monument office is not clear, nor the legal status of these historic buildings. Ar they listed or elsewhere legally protected? if yes, how? What consequences for the restoration design?
Response 14: The final part of Section 2 adds the role of the historic preservation office, the legal status of these buildings, and the relationship between investors, designers, and preservation services. This is also mentioned in the line 241 (line number from the version of the text before corrections).
Point 15: If Willa Halina is the very core of the argumentation, I would say that:
272 very poor historical description (see Venice charter art. 9)
Response 15: Because in the initial part of Section 5 (Revitalization and extension of Willa Halina in Sopot) a very detailed historical description of the building was made, therefore fulfilling the reviewer's requirement, in the line 272 (line number from the version of the text before corrections) it was added only that after the war the villa changed owners several times and served as a multi-family residential building however , its external appearance has not suffered much damage , apart from minor losses of architectural detail.
Point 16: 299 In consultation with the conservation services a decision was made. Heed to present the results of this discussion, and to clarify each role and responsibility (see above)
Response 16: The basic elements of the discussion with the conservator have been added to the line 299 (line number from the version of the text before corrections) while the role of the historic preservation office, the legal status of historic buildings in Sopot and the relationship between the investor, designers and the preservation services have been presented in the final part of Section 2.
Point 17: 302 [34,35,36] there is nearly no connection between these references and the paper's contents
Response 17: Bibliographic items [34,35,36], (now [37,38,39]) refer to stratigraphic studies of historic buildings, which were also used before the revitalization of Willa Halina and which were cited in the article. So it has a strong connection to the article.
Point 18: 350-353: the issue of energy-saving and windows deterioration is not enough discussed. The sentence: "but in a way that clearly shows the contemporary time of its construction" is unclear.
Response 18: In the lines 350-353 (line numbers from the version of the text before corrections) the thermal parameters of window frames, external walls and roof are described in detail, which have an impact on the thermal energy savings of a building. These parameters clearly indicate the contemporary time of creation of these elements.
Point 19: 373 see above
Response 19: The way of emphasizing the contemporary character of the new part of the building signaled in the line 373 is described in more detail in the lines 376 – 380 (line numbers from the version of the text before corrections).
Point 20: 414-421: this paragraph introduces a great issue and needs to be further developed and better discussed
Response 20: The reviewer is right that this is a very important issue. However, this is not the main topic of the article - it is a topic for a separate article so here these issues are only hinted at.
Point 21: 438-458: the connection of Willa Halina refurbishment/restoration with the historical and theoretical aim of the Venice Charter appears very poor.
Response 21: The revitalization of Villa Halina and other historical buildings in many European cities is, in the author's opinion, very much related to the Venice Charter, which the author tried to prove in the first part of his response to the Reviewer's remarks.
Once again, thank you very much to the Reviewer for all your valuable comments and for taking the trouble to read and review the article. I managed to incorporate most of the Reviewer's remarks into the revised text and the corrections were an interesting scientific adventure for me.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is fine after the changes introduced.

Congratulatios to the author.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted as case study article 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The author made good efforts to comply with the suggestions received. However, a little step further is needed.
Lines 220-225. Besides introducing the contemporary will for developing and revitalizing Sopot (e.g., how the real estate sector is addressing the historic buildings), you need to introduce the other side of the question by explaining the regulatory framework on the safeguard of heritage buildings. According to what (national?) law / constitutional principle is the historic buildings in Sopot legally protected? Does the protection include the public buildings and the private the same way? A brief explanation of the monuments' office structure is also needed. The author already stated the protection refers to the municipal level, but it is worth better explaining according to which national law or principle. This will better clarify the link with the principles of the Venice Charter, which are so important in the author's view. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx