Multifaith Room for Pediatric Cancer Center of Barcelona—An Intrahospital Public Space in the City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review
6.7.24

This paper describes a new multifaith space (MFS) in a Barcelona Hospital. In its present form it is not ready for publication. As a minimum we need a full description, images, plans section etc of the new space. Overall the piece is too much like journalism, promoting a particular architect’s work. It is not critical and does not place the space in context, culturally or physically. The plans are distorted and do not give any context, in fact we do not really know what the MFS looks like. For instance we are told that the plan’s proportions are in the golden ratio, please show us where and how in a scale plan.

From what is shown the new space is similar to several others. Circular or egg shaped MFS are quite common. It is the first idea many architects have.  (e.g., In Germany at Landesgartenschau, and Kapelle der Versöhnung in Berlin), many spaces house enigmatic objects, such as the block of stone in this case.  Similar MFS include Munich airport with a large wooden tree trunk, or the Meditation space at the UN in New York with its block of steel. In such spaces large natural objects are the focus rather than sacred artefacts. Thus it is not so original, and to that extent, contrary to what the abstract claims, the study is neither unprecedented nor exemplary.

The author(s) claim that
<<The methodology is based on three pillars: a literature review, an analysis of architectural design projects structured along a temporal axis (past-present-future), and a series of in-depth interviews with stakeholders involved in the project. >>
In that case please tell us the results of the literature review, and what was discovered during the interviews? In fact we learn nothing in either case. About the a temporal axis (past-present-future), what alternative temporal axes were considered? Spiral, circular perhaps.

The description of sacred spaces with which the article begins of different faiths is cliched and reductive. It makes no reference to the enormous scholarly  literature on this subject. The authors then claim <<Building a high-quality multi-religious space has been our project objective.>> Is the author the designer? This should be made clear as it affects how we read sentences such as:

<<From now on, thanks to the Multifaith Room for PCCB at HSJD, hospitals, airports, shopping centers, schools, and universities have an unprecedented contemporary example to inspire and hopefully improve, contributing to strengthening ties between research and applied research.>>

Is this a reasoned conclusion?

The precedents given here (MIT, Patriarch Abraham, and the unbuilt House of One are elaborate and well known. If these were important to the design it should be explained how they were chosen and how they were important, but no reasons or analysis is given.

For instance, about the MIT Chapel the author(s) write:
 <<  "sacred and enclosed darkness" (Thomas, 1954) and architectural elements resonating with both life and death, symbolized by the building's cylindrical shape and its exterior blind arches.>>
Who is quoting Dylan Thomas here, if Saarinen then say so, if not and it is the authors who bring him in then why use Thomas to illustrate a dim space? In any case the MIT chapel is not cylindrical it is wavy and the arches are not blind, they reflect waves from the pool in which the building sits, etc. It is not ringed by trees like the plan given here.  

<<The Silent Space should be a simplified environment of connection with everything, as Harman explains in his book on the quadruple object, an ontological relationship between objects, understood here as agents (Harman, 2016).>> (no page reference given).

This is irrelevant and hard to believe. The idea that simplified environment connects everything, I do not think occurs in Harman. If Object Orientated Ontology is the theory that underlies this design that would be interesting, but should be explained, maybe Harman's variation of Heidegger’s fourfold brought in to play. But nothing like this is given here.

The author(s) add, enigmatically <<Adding without detailing further, as it is not the study's objective to delve more into the project process, some parameters worked by (Zumthor, 2006) were used in creating the atmosphere.>> So a mystery, but why be shy? Why not tell us what these factors were, rather than saying there are there hidden occult details.

Much more could be said. As it stands we need the literature review and precedent study to be completed and the building described in context. The article needs to become critical rather than congratulatory and to place the space in a broader context of other MFS.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English standard is good, minor editting needed, easily done.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer please find atached our responses.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First and foremost, I extend my congratulations to the authors of the manuscript. The theme, its development, and presentation are of exceptional quality, making it easy to forget that it is a manuscript and not an already published text.

 

All that has been said is true up to point 3. Materials and method. (i) Why does “methodology” not represent a section of the article? On the other hand, (ii) given the proximity to the inauguration of the space mentioned, not many results can be presented beyond what has already been explained...

 

As we reach point 4, the conclusions are surprisingly brief, and the first lines do not truly serve as 'conclusions.' I would encourage the authors to delve deeper into their reflection, particularly based on the last sentence: “The triad of religion, public space, and society makes more sense here than ever before.” What are the relationships established within this triad? To what extent is it applicable to other institutions where death is not as prevalent? How does it differ because it is a children's hospital?

 

Beyond these central issues, there are some typographical details that I would like to highlight to be corrected:

Line 419: "Sons del Silènci" (in Catalan, meaning Sounds of Silence). In Catalan, the word "silenci" does not have an accent.

Lines 335 and 342: (Hospitecnia, 20..)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer please find atached our responses.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The conclusion needs rewriting to conclude the arguments presented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer please find atached our responses.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is much improved and almost ready to go.

The revisons answer the points raised in the original review.
The writing is slightly overdone, and might be better if shorter, especially in the abstract which is the thing that everyone reads.
So an edit is needed.

for instance

to deeply present an unpublished and exemplary case study, showcasing both the research con- 13 ducted for the design of the multireligious room and the process of its construction and implemen- 14
tation.

might be

to present an unpublished case study, showing  the research con- 13
ducted for the design of the multireligious room and the process of its construction.

This passage around line 628 also needs attention, I think.

<<The design also incorporates philosophical insights from thinkers like Heidegger and 628 Harman. By considering both the ontological relationships between objects and the holis- 629 tic interconnectivity of all elements, the multifaith room embodies a space where the tan- 630
gible and intangible, nature and human artifice, converge harmoniously. This approach 631 not only respects the diverse spiritual practices of its users but also elevates the space 632 beyond mere functionality to a profound expression of universal spirituality.>>

I dont think this passage is clear. Harmonious the space it might be but this is beside the point. Perhaps work in something like:

 It is designed to be ready at hand, an instrument of communion.
or
It represents Heidegger’s fourfold, earth, sky Gods, mortals, (see Harman p.89), (and this is almost literally true with the stone, skylight, place to sit and the spiritual atmosphere).
or
It is in the spirit of OOO (Object Orientated Ontology) sees objects such as this space as not just responding to a brief in a passive way but interacting with users in ways that are quite unpredictable as if the space possess a life and intentions of its own.

So nearly ready.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english is slightyl flowery, but clear and understandable, so good. A final edit for clarity and grammar is needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find atached our responses.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf