Christopher Alexander and the Inadequacy of Genius in the Architecture of the Coming Age

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of this manuscript is to compare the prescription of “Style”, offered by celebrated “'Genius' architects”, to the relevance of a polymath’s perceptions and capabilities.
In general, the manuscript is correctly written and developed, satisfactorily resolving the focus and intentionality outlined.

The following suggestions are made:

1. This manuscript is an essay, as the author admits in row 39. The category should be changed from "Article" to "Essay" type.

2. It is recommended that certain excessively personal descriptions that do not add value to the text should be removed, but on the contrary, they overly personalize the text in its author, rather than in the universality of the knowledge provided. For example "I am one of them" in rows 122-123, etc.

3. The figures provided are not mentioned in the text. If they are not directly related to the narrative of the manuscript, they should be deleted or if necessary mentioned explicitly.

4. References are missing. Various references are mentioned but without the corresponding mark or quotation. The standards of the journal should be followed.

Author Response

1) I do not know the difference

2) Done

3) Done

4) Done

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript needs conceptual tightening overall, in the explicit logic of transition from section to section, and in more precise definitions of terms and allusions. For starters, one must question the premise of there being two ways only of producing building designs, which Dickinson asserts, the "genius" way and the "polymath / people and circumstances" way. What about the use of building types, for example, as a way of practice in between the two ways? Can't types be the source of designs by individualist talents, like Frank Lloyd Wright, as well as the basis of folk practice in various vernaculars? At the least, laying out the "gameboard" for the essay's structure.  

Author Response

1) The "Game board" hs been described

2) Tightening has been efforted (net 700 words deleted) 

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.