Topological Interlocking Assembly: Introduction to Computational Architecture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

The paper on using Topological Interlocking Assembly (TIA) as a pedagogical tool for teaching computational architecture has been reviewed. While an interesting approach is presented, several recommendations are offered to enhance the paper's quality and impact:

 

1.       Theoretical Framework: The introduction to TIA and computational architecture is solid, but could be strengthened. An expanded literature review including more recent developments and comparisons with other pedagogical methods in architectural education is suggested. This would better contextualize the contribution.

2.       Structure and Organization: Improvement in the paper's structure is needed. The frequent use of short paragraphs and unclear section delineations currently makes it challenging to follow. A reorganization of content into more clearly defined sections with smoother transitions between ideas is recommended.

3.       Research Objectives/Question and Gaps: The paper's objectives, research questions, and the gap being addressed are not clearly stated. These elements should be articulated more explicitly early in the paper to guide the reader's understanding of the work's significance.

4.       Literature Review: To support the research gap, relevant previous studies should be identified and discussed more thoroughly. This would help readers understand how this work builds upon existing knowledge.

5.       It is suggested authors clearly explain the aim of the this research in the introduction section and explain who can benefit from this research.

6.       Methodology: While the methodology section is generally clear, it could benefit from more details. Specifically:

·         An explanation of how student outcomes were evaluated

·         More information on the computational tools and software used (e.g., Grasshopper for Rhinoceros 3D)

·         A step-by-step description of the design workshop tasks

7.       Limitations and Future Work: The discussion of limitations is commendable. However, elaboration on strategies to address these challenges in future iterations of the course is suggested. For instance, how students' computational skills might be enhanced, material accessibility improved, or more real-world applications integrated.

8.       Conclusion: The conclusion could be strengthened by more explicitly stating the key contributions and implications of this work for architectural education and practice.

9.       Grammar and Formatting: Several minor grammatical and formatting issues are present throughout the paper. For example:

·         In section 4.1: "Its development was group work" should be "Its development was a group work"

·         In section 4.3: "plaster of Paris" should be lowercase "plaster of paris"
A careful proofreading of the entire manuscript is recommended to address these and similar issues.

It is believed that addressing these points would significantly improve the paper's clarity, coherence.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Thank you for the valid and comprehensive feedback. Efforts have been made to address it to the best of my ability.

• 1. Theoretical Framework: The introduction to TIA and computational architecture is solid, but
  could be strengthened. An expanded literature review including more recent developments
  and comparisons with other pedagogical methods in architectural education is suggested.
  This would better contextualize the contribution. / 4. Literature Review: To support the research gap, relevant previous studies should be identified and discussed more thoroughly. This would help readers understand how this work builds upon existing knowledge.
  •  The paper did lack references to contextualize it, and an effort was made to correct this. In the introductory paragraph, several references highlight the relevance of TIA in architecture and contemporary research in this area. Additionally, references to examples of TIA used in architectural education are included in Section 3, where they are discussed in relation to the described methodology.  
• 2. Structure and Organization: Improvement in the paper's structure is needed. The frequent
  use of short paragraphs and unclear section delineations currently makes it challenging to
  follow. A reorganization of content into more clearly defined sections with smoother
  transitions between ideas is recommended.
  • To address these concerns, the content has been reorganized into clearly defined sections, each with a specific heading and purpose. Shorter paragraphs were merged to enhance transitions between ideas, ensuring a smoother and more coherent flow. These changes aim to improve readability and strengthen the line of argument.
• 3. Research Objectives/Question and Gaps: The paper's objectives, research questions, and the
  gap being addressed are not clearly stated. These elements should be articulated more
  explicitly early in the paper to guide the reader's understanding of the work's significance. 
  •  The discussion on methodology has been removed from the design workshop section and is now presented as an overall methodology for all case studies discussed. This reorganization strengthens the discussion and line of argument. The methodology's main aims, executable steps, expected outcomes, and student assessment are defined in this section and indicated with subtitles, providing a more explicit articulation of the research objectives addressed.
• 5. It is suggested authors clearly explain the aim of this research in the introduction section
  and explain who can benefit from this research.
  • The aim of the methodology was clarified in Section 3, as previously mentioned. The benefits of the research were discussed in an expanded conclusion section to address this suggestion.
• 6. Methodology: While the methodology section is generally clear, it could benefit from more
  details. Specifically: An explanation of how student outcomes were evaluated; More information on the computational tools and software used (e.g., Grasshopper for Rhinoceros 3D); A step-by-step description of the design workshop tasks.
  • The evaluation of student outcomes was detailed in Section 3.2 (Methodology Outcomes). The use of software, such as Grasshopper for Rhinoceros 3D, was mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 4.1 (Design Workshop Task and Methodology), with an emphasis on its role as a tool rather than a focal point. Additionally, the step-by-step description of tasks was covered in the methodology section (Section 3), where customization for each case study was explained in detail.
• 7. Limitations and Future Work: The discussion of limitations is commendable. However,
  elaboration on strategies to address these challenges in future iterations of the course is
  suggested. For instance, how students' computational skills might be enhanced, material
  accessibility improved, or more real-world applications integrated.
  • The expanded discussion in the conclusions addresses these suggestions. Its line of argument focuses on enhancing design thinking and new methods of working leveraging computation to innovate in uncertain contexts rather than solely emphasizing the direct application of TIA.
• 8. Conclusion: The conclusion could be strengthened by more explicitly stating the key
  contributions and implications of this work for architectural education and practice.
  • The expanded discussion in the conclusions addresses these suggestions.
• Grammar and Formatting: Several minor grammatical and formatting issues are present
  throughout the paper. 
  • Attention and effort were invested in addressing grammatical and formatting issues, and to enhance the paper's structure to improve coherence.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting and quite novel system for the design of modules capable of filling a space. The article is well developed and the theoretical analysis is complete, although in some cases it can be difficult to follow. Figures 7 and 9 in particular would deserve some further explanation.

 Figure 8 shows what it calls a structural speculation. It could be valid by guaranteeing adequate connections between modules, which in any case are not defined. The structure would not be stable by the simple accumulation of such modules and therefore an explanation should be added.

 The article is intended as a pedagogical exercise for architecture students. Like many of the approaches based on parametric developments, they can transmit to the student the mistaken belief that everything that can be drawn can be built. Without adequate critical exposure, this view of architecture may be inappropriate for students in training.

 In section 6 "Limitations", some comment on the architectural validity of the proposals should be added. The quotation from Escher is certainly pertinent, but it is worth remembering that his work is certainly admirable, but he did not build anything. The function of the architect is to build and the teaching of architecture must always be focused on this objective.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the valid and comprehensive feedback. Efforts have been made to address it to the best of my ability.

• The article presents an interesting and quite novel system for the design of modules capable of filling a space. The article is well developed and the theoretical analysis is complete, although in some cases it can be difficult to follow. Figures 7 and 9 in particular would deserve some further explanation.
  • Further explanation has been provided for Figures 7 and 9 to enhance clarity and understanding.
• Figure 8 shows what it calls a structural speculation. It could be valid by guaranteeing adequate connections between modules, which in any case are not defined. The structure would not be stable by the simple accumulation of such modules and therefore an explanation should be added.
  • Section 3 has been revised to provide a clearer description of the methodology. It emphasizes that the focus is not on structural issues and buildability but rather on TIA's formation process and the emergent forms resulting from its system of generative geometric interdependencies. Section 3.2, Methodology Outcomes, includes a clarification that ensures students were made aware of this focus.
•  The article is intended as a pedagogical exercise for architecture students. Like many of the approaches based on parametric developments, they can transmit to the student the mistaken belief that everything that can be drawn can be built. Without adequate critical exposure, this view of architecture may be inappropriate for students in training.
  • The expanded methodology description and discussion in the conclusions address these suggestions. They explain the approach towards architecture as a discipline derived from and responsive to its context, not only tied to construction. The methodology outlined in the paper showcases the break from established design paradigms. It encourages the development of design processes that actively engage with and respond to the unfamiliar contexts encountered. This stance of the paper is instigated by the situation in Malta and its rampant, accelerating rate of construction (by far the highest in Europe) and the need for architecture to diversify its focus to ensure the quality of the built environment.   

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is revised according to most of the comments from the previous round. However, the main problem of mentioning the aim and gap of the research is still there:

 

As highlighted in the first round of review, the introduction should concisely highlight the relevant background that supports the research gap and clearly explain the research aim. This will help readers understand the significance and objectives of the research as they look for the gap and aim in the introduction section. The authors need to rework their introduction by mentioning more relevant studies, pinpointing them, and clearly stating the research gap and aim. This should be included between lines 23-50 in the introduction section.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We fully agree with the proposed suggestions. In our latest revision, we made every effort to concisely highlight the research background, define the two research gaps, and clearly explain the research aims. We included references to relevant studies and indicated their connection to our work. We hope the final revision is clear and that the argument is well articulated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes it clear that the proposed modules are a simple geometric proposal, with the basic objective of helping to train future architects. It would be appropriate to make it clear to them that further development is necessary for these modules to go from being geometry to architecture.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful feedback and for helping us enhance our work.