Architectural Strategies of Dis- and Re-Enchantment: Building for the European Union Is Not a Master Narrative

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a fine paper. The sociological, political, and psychological base of your analysis is good.

However, your analysis of the buildings should be broadened and deepened. Just mentioning the plan and the glass walls of the Berlaymont building is not enough. You must also deal with plan, façade composition, and interior layout and finish to form a compelling interpretation of this building. Also, try to demonstrate more convincingly how this design fits into the International Style and the concept of "form follows function."

For the "Europa" building, you just use the word "symbolic." This is not enough. You must explain what the building, its form, façade articulation, interior plan and decoration all contribute to this symbolic expression. Try to actually identify what this symbol(ism) means, or communicates to the viewer.

The particular exterior wall articulations are also influenced by the increasing concern for sustainability in architecture, which would represent a purely architectural reaction to the symbolism demanded by the European Union.

Perhaps you can even demonstrate that the real architectural development and evolution during these years matches, or mirrors, the development of the EU.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading my text so closely and for your important and precious feedback.

I deepened the argumentation as well as the analysis of the buildings as requested. 

The connections of mirroring and matching of architecture and European Union development are topic of a broader paper of mine that will be published in another context. 

With best regards!

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading this manuscript and I appreciate the argument the author is making. Considering how enchantment and disenchantment intersect with important buildings housing a supranational network is an important topic to consider. However, this manuscript would benefit from multiple major changes to strengthen the argument:

     More analysis of the buildings. Of the manuscript, a little more than 2 pages analyze the buildings and their architecture. This should be developed more. How exactly do they embody particular values? Can more be said about the design and construction processes and discussions? What are lived experiences in these structures? How do they fit with the surrounding streetscapes and neighborhoods? How did these buildings influence subsequent expressions of values and identity? And so on.

2.       More engagement with research literature on buildings, architecture, and meaning. For example, sociologist Paul Jones has multiple works on architecture and government identities. Or, Brenneman and Miller discuss how religious buildings shape those within; does the same thing happen with these EU structures?

3.       Developing the argument further:

a.       Do these buildings simply reflect narratives or do they help shape them? The argument is that they display particular values and identities that have changed over time. Do they also influence narratives when constructed and as long as they are used?

b.       How do these two cases compare to (i) other EU buildings and (ii) architecture in other EU headquarter cities? The author does not need in-depth analysis of other structures yet these are missing comparisons that could help strengthen the argument.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading my text so closely and for your important and precious feedback.

I deepened the argumentation as well as the analysis of the buildings as requested. Very useful was the mentioning of Paul Jones' work which I dodn't know before. Thank you very much.

The archival sources of the planning and construction processes are not very explicit concerning the "image" of the buildings, especially for the Berlaymont building. The EUROPA is well documented in the architects publication cited in the text.

This paper is part of a broader research project. Some parts of the argumentation will find publicity in other texts. That is the reason this paper can't give a comprehensive overview.

With best regards!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revisions, particularly those addressing the buildings and adding to the argument. These revisions helped better connect the physical structures to the theory.

While I think more could be done to strengthen the argument even further (including answering whether these buildings simply reflect narratives or do they help shape them? and even short comparisons to other buildings with similar functions), I recommend this article for publication.