A Townscape in Evolution: Caño Roto Modern Heritage, 1957–2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper, probably following an architectural study of the Caño Roto settlement in Madrid. Due to its origins it is mainly descriptive, discussing the architectural features of the settlement and their role. This provides a thorough appreciation of the settlement as a whole but lacks in a more critical understanding of the role of such settlements in the urban landscape, in the specific historical conditions. Is Caño Roto an unicum in Spain? is it a common practice? what happens in other cities with similar issues inside or outside Spain? how do they organise space? what are the social results - integration/exclusion. These are among the crucial information that could provide social "flesh" to the otherwise interesting and systematic discussion of the architectural heritage of the settlement. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your suggestions. To address all of them could take some other papers, apart from existing literature (references in this article and many others omitted are interesting to know deeper the Spanish post-war context in both architecture and urban planning proposals), but we have tried to explain better some questions.

Firstly, to add a critical understanding of the role of this type of settlement we have added a whole paragraph in section 4 (Discussion), together with some new references. Otherwise, we agree that discerning if it was a unique or common experience is a very important concern: we have added some information and reflections in this new paragraph, related to Spanish practice. However, in our opinion, to extend this matter to European –or American– context could take wider studies. On the other hand, this question has been addressed before in other research, some of which has been referenced in our paper (Calvo del Olmo 2014, Cánovas 2013 and 2021). In short, Caño Roto is a unique urban project. To explain this question better, we have added a paragraph in section 3 (Results), apart from the aforementioned refections.

Even when our study is focused in the townscape analysis, we are aware of the key role of the social results: to address it briefly, we have responded your kind suggestion by adding a paragraph in section 3 (Results) section under ‘3.4 Social considerations’ subsection.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper approaches the subject Caño Roto from a suggestive point of view that complements other more usual discourses and analyses on a subject that the authors show they are familiar with. Moreover, it does so through interesting graphic material and an easy-to-read text.

The following are some minor points for the authors to consider if they so wish.

Regarding the introduction, it is clear and synthetic, although a general scheme or diagram of the whole would clarify the urban and typological context as a complement to the text. Probably the word social housing couldbe included as a key word.

I suggest going deeper into the methodology used, specifying the structure of the analysis according to the concepts or categories enunciated by Cullen and Taylor, explaining them succinctly, and which underpin the work. Also justify the three dates of the evolution of the neighbourhood.

In the results, if possible, it would be enlightening to be able to understand the neighbourhood in Madrid, including its outer limits, what surrounds the neighbourhood. Possibly, to understand and complete the global perception, evolution and final discussion.

It may also be useful to cite the academic work that precedes this article, as it is possibly the beginning of this research.

Finally, there are some editing issues. For example, the numbering of the sections of 1. Introduction should be revised.
Also, it is suggested to date the images that illustrate the document and to cite the source of the images. I understand that some are from the authors but the original black and white ones are not referenced.
In the bibliographical references, the text of references 2, 38 and 39 should be revised (incomplete links, punctuation and italics).

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your suggestions. Many of them have been addressed:

• We have added 'social housing' as a keyword. It would be a sort of mistake in the paper: thank you very much.
• We have added a short sentence to summarize the structure of the analysis.
• A justification of the three dates has been added.
• We have added a couple of plans to understand better the neighbourhood in Madrid and its district urban fabric (figure 3).
• We have added a plan to understand better the structure os the settlement (figure 1)
• We have added some paragraphs to explain the global perception, evolution and final discussion.
• The academic work has been referenced in the new sub-section ‘3.4 Social considerations’.
• We have corrected the edition mistakes: numbering, biographical references, dating of the photographs and references in historical images. Thank you very much indeed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the article. In my opinion, it is a well-referenced and well-written text on an interesting and relevant topic. I really enjoyed reading it.

However, I do have one concern: currently it is not entirely clear what the objective of the document is.  This is possibly the only source of confusion in an otherwise very good paper. When finishing reading it, one may get the feeling that it is incomplete, that something is missing. Possibly, clearly stating what the objective is could help in this sense.

For example: if the objective of the paper is to discuss the evolution of Caño Roto over the years, it might be a good idea to add a paragraph detailing its urbanistic history (exactly what interventions have been carried out, what changes in the regulations that affected its evolution... etc.).

Instead, if the objective is to discuss which architectural features should be preserved, then it might be a good idea to present a formal analysis of Caño Roto at its origin, with the original design intentions.

 

_A minor consideration: chapter “3.1 Historical context” should rather be called “1.1. Historical context”. Similarly, chapter “3.2 Caño Roto past and present” should be entitled “1.2 Caño Roto past and present”

 

Author Response

Thank you for all your reflections, in special for your reflection about the objective of the paper. We have tried to maintain a dual perspective throughout the article, identifying the key elements of the urban landscape and its evolution: the aim, in this sense, is to contribute knowledge to the debate on the heritage values of Caño Roto. To this end, the study has focused on the analysis of one of the least studied aspects of the settlement, the urban landscape, which has been mentioned since the intentions of the project report and suggested from the first publications to the most recent ones, but never systematically studied. A sentence has been added to the introduction in this sense (41-43). Given the impossibility of documenting the urban landscape in its original state, its traces have been followed based on these two aspects: urban form and its evolution. Regarding the urban form of the project (extensively studied by Isasi, Calvo del Olmo, Cánovas, Esteban and other authors), we have tried to focus on the defining elements of the urban landscape, i.e. the proportions of the streets, the plantings or the structure of the public space (section 1.2). A planimetric scheme has been added to complement the photographic series (Fig. 1). Regarding the evolution of the urban landscape, an attempt has been made to isolate it according to historical data (section 1.2) and to the characterisation of its in-situ elements (section 3). On the other hand, we have corrected the numbering mistakes. Thank you very much again.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

n/a

Comments on the Quality of English Language

n/a