Relocating the Urban Center: Lessons of Vilnius

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a case study in Lithuania in the form of a narrative. However, I find it challenging to consider this study as a significant contribution to knowledge rather than just a documentation of what the authors read and know about the case study. In my opinion, this manuscript was not prepared with the intention of being published in a journal. It would be better suited as a book chapter.

The challenges are in the methods and results sections, which should be written scientifically

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The text has some accuracy in various areas, but it is not written in a scientific manner. The example is given to "The article discusses and highlights the reasons for the failures of urban transformation and explains how similar flaws and mistakes could be avoided." 

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

thank You for your observations. We acknowledge the need to expand the Methods and Results/Discussion sections and we have done that, as well as we revised the entire text in consideration of your comments and those of other reviewers.

 

Addressing your specific remark regarding the lack of scientific manner, we would like to clarify that our research objectives are oriented towards in-depth understanding of the urban phenomenon, rather than a traditional hypothesis-testing approach. This "substantive-descriptive" research is a valid and recognized aim within urban studies (Moudon, 2013), (Lans & van der Voordt, 2002).

By emphasizing the collision between the historical “natural” city and the modern “artificial” city, as well as the lack of connectivity and wholeness in different scales, we believe we are able to expose the broader challenges faced by changing post-Soviet cities in Eastern Europe, that may be applied to other post-colonial cities around the World. This conceptual framing well-alignes with the concept-driven research approach that we have adopted.

 

 

 

 

Lans, W., & van der Voordt, T. (2002). Descriptive research. In Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design (pp. 53–60). DUP Science.

Moudon, A. V. (2013). A Catholic Approach to Organizing What Urban Designers Should Know. In The Urban Design Reader (Second, pp. 235–257). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203094235-23

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the modern development of the new “city center” of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. As authors pointed out in the “discussion” section, historic layers of the area and its genius loci should be respected in urban planning and the history and current needs should be both considered. This idea seems to be widely recognized all over the world, and considered also by developers today. However, it is not an easy task to specify exactly what are the genus loci of the area, and it is quite difficult to harmonize history and current needs in actual implementation. Also there are serious conflicts regarding who bears the cost of the harmonization. These are important issues, and I think the paper should be published after suitable revisions.

 

I think the paper will be more persuasive if the authors also discuss the issues mentioned below.

 

1)    What is the genius loci of this specific area? In this paper, the exteriors, the materials and height of the buildings are referred to; wood, brick, high buildings or not. Are these points the only essential and important elements of the genius loci of this area?  If not, what are the other existing and/or potential elements/features?

2)    The paper also mentions “connectivity to local culture.” If the authors discuss more specifically what are the actual features and elements of “local culture” and “connectivity”, the genius loci of this area might be understood more clearly. For example, consider the Swedbank building introduced in section 3.2.2, which the authors describe as “the only administrative building … that responds to the local heritage context.” I think that the authors can develop the discussion regarding the above points, considering this case more closely. It is desirable to show a visual image of this building for better understanding of the situation.

3)    Nobody disagrees that balancing history and current needs is important. The authors should discuss the current needs of this area more specifically, and who benefits and why have buildings and houses which the authors think lack connectivity to local history and culture been used. (The authors mention this area as being inert, but I think many people work and live in the area.)   

4)    Fig 2, a map of this area, is too small and not readable. The size of this map should be enlarged with higher resolution (at least readable one), and houses and buildings mentioned in the text should be dotted in this map, in order to understand the whole picture of the area and connectivity. This also applies to Figure 7.

5)    The handwritten map (Fig 5) is difficult to understand. A map with clear visual images should be prepared.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our article. We appreciate your insights and suggestions for strengthening it. Please find our responses to your specific comments below:

1. We have critically reviewed the article and, in the revised version provided, we have more clearly formulated what the genius loci of a place is, responding to your comment.
2. Your suggestion to discuss the specific features and elements of "local culture" and how the new developments connect (or fail to connect) to them is well-taken. We strengthened this aspect of the analysis. We added the relevant image of Swedbank building too.
3. Your insight about delving deeper into the current needs and uses of the Šnipiškės area is useful and fair. Though the article does address the current needs, benefits, and usage of the area, even if the new developments lack connectivity to local history, balance and vitality, especially the are of CBD.We have complemented our article and highlighted key points to provide a more comprehensive answer to this complex issue.
4. We have improved Figure 2, making it larger and more legible. We have marked the Giedraičiai sub-ward and the Šnipiškės sub-ward more clearly. These are the areas where all the buildings and places we analysed are located.
5. The revised version of article we complemented with an updated image-scheme (Fig. 5).

 

We believe that by addressing these points in the revised manuscript, we strengthened the analysis and provided a more comprehensive and compelling examination of the urban transformation in Šnipiškės. Your feedback has been valuable in helping us identify areas for improvement, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the quality and depth of our case study.

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores the attempt to relocate the urban center of Vilnius. The results section is comprehensive and provides a significant amount of information. However, in order to be considered for publication, the paper needs to be placed within a more scientific framework.

To improve the paper, the abstract should be rewritten to clearly highlight the study's topic, the methodology used, and the key findings. This will provide a concise overview of the research for readers.

Additionally, the introduction section should introduce relevant urban theories and provide comparisons with similar studies conducted in other cities around the world. This will situate the study within the broader urban research landscape and demonstrate the significance of the research.

A methodology framework section is necessary to outline the logical approach of the study. The authors should explain the data collection strategy and provide information on how the collected information was organized and analyzed. This will enhance the transparency and replicability of the research.

Finally, a conclusion section should be included to summarize the findings and discuss their implications. This will provide closure to the paper and allow readers to better understand the significance of the study.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to address your comments and strengthen the presentation of our research. Please find our responses below:

1. We have revised the abstract to provide a more concise and structured overview of the study. The updated abstract clearly highlights the research topic, the concept-driven qualitative methodology employed, and the key findings regarding the challenges and lessons learned from the urban transformation of Vilnius' Šnipiškės district. This revision aims to give readers a clear and succinct understanding of the study's focus and contributions. However, we would like to clarify that our research objectives are oriented towards in-depth understanding of the urban phenomenon, rather than a traditional hypothesis-testing approach. This "substantive-descriptive" research is a valid and recognized aim within urban studies  (Moudon, 2013), (Lans & van der Voordt, 2002).

2. We have improved abstract, introduction and methods sections and highlighted the study topic, methodology used and key findings.
3. Your suggestion to complement introduction section with relevant urban theories and provide comparisons with similar studies conducted in other cities around the world is useful and fair. In the introduction, we have expanded the discussion to situate our work within the broader context of urban theory and research. We provided a more comprehensive review of the relevant architectural and urban planning concepts. Additionally, we have incorporated comparisons to similar studies conducted in other post-Soviet and post-colonial cities.
4. "Methods and Materials" section outlines the research approach in greater detail. This includes explanations of the concept-driven qualitative methodology, the case study analysis focused on the Šnipiškės district, the ethnographic observation and documentation techniques, the historical analysis, and the use of graphic visualization methods.
5. We have added the conclusions section.

We believe that by addressing these points in the revised manuscript, we strengthened the analysis and provided a more comprehensive and compelling examination of the urban transformation in Šnipiškės. Your feedback has been valuable in helping us identify areas for improvement, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the quality and depth of our case study.

 

 

Lans, W., & van der Voordt, T. (2002). Descriptive research. In Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design (pp. 53–60). DUP Science.

Moudon, A. V. (2013). A Catholic Approach to Organizing What Urban Designers Should Know. In The Urban Design Reader (Second, pp. 235–257). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203094235-23

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Authors, thank you for providing the revised version and considering all the reviewers' comments.

This manuscript is about the relocation of the city center in Vilnius, Lithuania and the challenges and lessons learned from this urban transformation.

The manuscript has been developed, and the method section has been rewritten. 

 

I have further modifications regarding the discussion section. The authors did not compare their results to prior studies that have dealt with the city centre in various cities around the Globe. Besides, the discussion did not discuss the research limitations. 

Besides, the points of weakness in this article include a lack of clear organization and thesis statement, inconsistent use of terminology, lack of analysis and critical evaluation, lack of visuals, lack of recommendations or proposals, lack of historical context, lack of external sources, lack of specific data and evidence, limited analysis of alternative options, lack of stakeholder perspectives, insufficient discussion of post-Soviet and post-colonial urban transformations, lack of clarity in the methodology, lack of consideration for the historic urban fabric, fragmentation and lack of wholeness, lack of connectivity and continuity, superficiality and lack of intricacy, controversial features of new residential buildings, and lack of responsibility in relocation projects.   These points should be addressed or be named in the limitation section and suggest accordingly further research.  

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:

I have further modifications regarding the discussion section. The authors did not compare their results to prior studies that have dealt with the city centre in various cities around the Globe. Besides, the discussion did not discuss the research limitations. 

Besides, the points of weakness in this article include a lack of clear organization and thesis statement, inconsistent use of terminology, lack of analysis and critical evaluation, lack of visuals, lack of recommendations or proposals, lack of historical context, lack of external sources, lack of specific data and evidence, limited analysis of alternative options, lack of stakeholder perspectives, insufficient discussion of post-Soviet and post-colonial urban transformations, lack of clarity in the methodology, lack of consideration for the historic urban fabric, fragmentation and lack of wholeness, lack of connectivity and continuity, superficiality and lack of intricacy, controversial features of new residential buildings, and lack of responsibility in relocation projects.   These points should be addressed or be named in the limitation section and suggest accordingly further research.  

Response and Revisions

Response 1:

We appreciate your comment regarding the lack of comparison with previous studies at a global level. Although such comparisons can provide valuable context, we have deliberately chosen to focus our discussion primarily on the unique aspects of Šnipiškės and its post-Soviet transformation for the following reasons: unique historical context, emphasis on the local urban fabric, limited precedents, limitation of scope, and our intention to contribute to post-Soviet urban studies.

While recognising the value of global comparisons, we believe that our approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the specific urban processes in Šnipiškės and similar post-Soviet contexts. However, future studies could certainly benefit from more comprehensive comparative analyses that build on the detailed local insights provided by our research. We have also highlighted this as one of the limitations of our study for future research in the Discussion section.

In response to your particular observation regarding the lack of visuals and critical evaluation as a weakness in this article, we have supplemented our study with visual material and a critical commentary on page 17.

Finally, we thank you for pointing out the lack of research limitations in the discussion section. We agree with this comment and have therefore improved the discussion section of our article by pointing out the limitations of the study and suggesting important directions for future research that would expand this line of research. Please read the section on page 20.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been developed and the authors have provided proper responses.