A Scientific Approach to the Densification Debate in Bergen Centre in Norway
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review on the paper entitled “A scientific approach to the densification debate in Bergen centre in Norway”.
In this paper, the authors present a densification strategy of Bergen, Norway that is in line with the effort of the municipality to stop urban sprawl and introduce a compact city strategy. The authors conducted a straightforward and thorough research by employing the most appropriate methods. I highly acknowledge the quality of the figures and that of the methods employed. The paper is very well designed leaving no doubt that the authors are experts in the field. I recommend the journal to publish this paper. I have, however, some minor remarks that I list below:
1) The authors refer to the compact city several times. I found no clue in the paper on what basis the compact city of Bergen was designated. I assume Bergen covers a large area of land out of which only a part of it is considered to be the compact city.
2) The authors should also mention what the population number of Bergen is and what the size of the total area (and the area of the compact city) is. They put some information on the population change in the paper but we should compare those changes with the actual population number.
3) In lines 31-33, they add that “this strategy is radically different from previous ones that facilitated urban sprawl, car-dependency and consequently low socio-economic interaction and anti- urban neighbourhoods.” I am not sure whether the previous strategies were used in the case of Bergen only or they were employed in general.
4) In lines 71-81, the authors provide a description on the special features of Bergen’s geographical location and also some information on its neighbourhood classification. Considering the international readership of the journal I encourage the authors to include a map demonstrating these issues in the paper (of course, Fig. 3 may give us some information about the geography of the city, so it should be cited here at least).
5) In lines 324-327, the authors write the followings: “The higher the concentration of various facilities, the higher the attractiveness and desirability to live in or near these areas. This is mirrored in the property prices, where the highest square meter prices can be found in the city centre.” For the readers, it would be interesting to gain some information on the property prices in the city centre and outside the city centre (city centre with block-like buildings vs. the outskirt of the city and suburbs with stand-alone houses).
6) In lines 331-332, the authors add that “According to most writings on compact cities, a compact city has a high density of built mass…”. I suggest that the authors should cite those writings and include them into the reference list as well.
7) Will the municipality introduce legal regulations to prevent urban sprawl? That is, if somebody prefers to live in a stand-alone house outside the city centre and intends to build such type of house in the suburb or the outskirt of the city, how he/she will be persuaded by the municipality to choose an apartment in a block-like building located in the city centre instead? Does a legal control mechanism exist in Bergen to regulate and restrict private building investments?
Other minor remarks:
In line 24, in the final line of the Abstract, there is a number in brackets (190) giving no additional information to the readers (or maybe it does but I cannot recognize it).
The authors should decide whether they use American or British style quotation marks (see the different ones in line 83 vs. lines 110-112).
In Figure 2, the text in the figure is in Norwegian (antall) that should be translated into English.
In Table 2, the sum of the percentages of the weightings is more than 100%. Is it due to the rounding?
Finally, let me share my personal observation:
This coronavirus pandemic has called our attention to the fact that the virus spread much faster in dense areas as compared to loosely built-up areas (see the case of New York vs. Los Angeles). The fear from the virus may prompt people to leave inner urban areas giving new impetus to urban sprawl again. In addition, in many countries, during lockdowns, the municipalities stopped operating public transportation which then has been restarted, however, the popularity of using private cars has increased. In conclusion, in the light of this recent event the pros and cons of densifying cities might be re-evaluated.
Author Response
Thanks a lot for your great comments. We are happy to read that you liked our paper
|
Comment reviewer |
Our response |
|
1) The authors refer to the compact city several times. I found no clue in the paper on what basis the compact city of Bergen was designated. I assume Bergen covers a large area of land out of which only a part of it is considered to be the compact city. |
Information has been added in lines 74-77 |
|
2) The authors should also mention what the population number of Bergen is and what the size of the total area (and the area of the compact city) is. They put some information on the population change in the paper but we should compare those changes with the actual population number.
|
Information has been added in lines 74-77 |
|
3) In lines 31-33, they add that “this strategy is radically different from previous ones that facilitated urban sprawl, car-dependency and consequently low socio-economic interaction and anti- urban neighbourhoods.” I am not sure whether the previous strategies were used in the case of Bergen only or they were employed in general. |
These strategies were generally employed in most Norwegian towns and cities (added in line 33)
|
|
4) In lines 71-81, the authors provide a description on the special features of Bergen’s geographical location and also some information on its neighbourhood classification. Considering the international readership of the journal I encourage the authors to include a map demonstrating these issues in the paper (of course, Fig. 3 may give us some information about the geography of the city, so it should be cited here at least).
|
Updated Figure 3 (b) by adding place names and referring to the Figure in line 71. |
|
5) In lines 324-327, the authors write the followings: “The higher the concentration of various facilities, the higher the attractiveness and desirability to live in or near these areas. This is mirrored in the property prices, where the highest square meter prices can be found in the city centre.” For the readers, it would be interesting to gain some information on the property prices in the city centre and outside the city centre (city centre with block-like buildings vs. the outskirt of the city and suburbs with stand-alone houses).
|
The property prices have been added into the text
|
|
6) In lines 331-332, the authors add that “According to most writings on compact cities, a compact city has a high density of built mass…”. I suggest that the authors should cite those writings and include them into the reference list as well.
|
References added into the text
|
|
7) Will the municipality introduce legal regulations to prevent urban sprawl? That is, if somebody prefers to live in a stand-alone house outside the city centre and intends to build such type of house in the suburb or the outskirt of the city, how he/she will be persuaded by the municipality to choose an apartment in a block-like building located in the city centre instead? Does a legal control mechanism exist in Bergen to regulate and restrict private building investments? |
No, the estate market in Norway is getting more marked driven, due to the strong property rights. The biggest challenge is to negotiate a solution that will be a win-win situation for all stake holders and property owners. There exists only a legal control mechanism in Bergen to regulate and restrict private building investment if there is a land use plan. Short comment on this is added in the text (lines 533-536)
|
|
In line 24, in the final line of the Abstract, there is a number in brackets (190) giving no additional information to the readers (or maybe it does but I cannot recognize it). The authors should decide whether they use American or British style quotation marks (see the different ones in line 83 vs. lines 110-112). In Figure 2, the text in the figure is in Norwegian (antall) that should be translated into English. In Table 2, the sum of the percentages of the weightings is more than 100%. Is it due to the rounding? Finally, let me share my personal observation: This coronavirus pandemic has called our attention to the fact that the virus spread much faster in dense areas as compared to loosely built-up areas (see the case of New York vs. Los Angeles). The fear from the virus may prompt people to leave inner urban areas giving new impetus to urban sprawl again. In addition, in many countries, during lockdowns, the municipalities stopped operating public transportation which then has been restarted, however, the popularity of using private cars has increased. In conclusion, in the light of this recent event the pros and cons of densifying cities might be re-evaluated.
|
OK (abstract word count, removed)
OK
Changed ‘Antall’ to ‘Amount in figure 2’
I checked the original document. Topic 6 is ‘moderately important’ instead of ‘important’, and scores 0-2 points, not 0-3. The sum now adds up correctly. Added ‘or vista’, since locations with a view are also taken into account here. We totally agree with your observations. However, the larger part of the land in Norwegian towns and cities are covered by single family houses with their own garden. The numbers presented by WHO and the mainstream media have no correlation with dense urban environments other than population density like ordinary flu viruses, and no basis in science. In our view, we need not be manipulated into fearing others and flee the city. In a time of digitalisation, we ought to put our efforts into increasing social interaction, which dense urban areas facilitate so well. |
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an extremely interesting topic and this research provides useful suggestions and insights. Moreover, the authors offer/propose a new approach that can be re-applied in different contexts. In general, this is a very sound proposal from a technical point of view but it shows two main (theoretical and ethical) limits:
1) a theoretical problem. The article cites two theories: the theory of the natural movement economic processes and the theory of the natural urban transformation process. It is no clear to the readers how important these two theories are for the development of the paper. First of all, they are not sufficiently presented and explained in the text. Secondly, they seem to be used in a scattered way by the authors. Are these two theories really relevant? If they are (as they seem to be by looking at authors' emphasis) they should be better included in the whole discorse.
2) an ethical problem. The impression is that the authors elude any ethical concerns or reflections. A densification tool that individuates and allocate different rights to different people must be defendable and justifiable. Why is this tool better and more just than others? Authors should address this issue and their ethical concerns must be clearly stated. The problem I have in accepting a tool of this kind is that authors do not discuss its main ethical-social implications. This is a crucial issue.
Author Response
Thanks a lot for your great comments. We are happy to read that you liked our paper
|
Comment reviewer |
Our response |
|
1) a theoretical problem. The article cites two theories: the theory of the natural movement economic processes and the theory of the natural urban transformation process. It is no clear to the readers how important these two theories are for the development of the paper. First of all, they are not sufficiently presented and explained in the text. Secondly, they seem to be used in a scattered way by the authors. Are these two theories really relevant? If they are (as they seem to be by looking at authors' emphasis) they should be better included in the whole discorse. |
These theories are established through systematic research and are well used in most space syntax research in urban areas. A throughout discussion about the explanatory power of these theories are highlighted in a recent published paper in this special space syntax issue in ‘Sustainability’. This is referred to in this paper.
|
|
2) an ethical problem. The impression is that the authors elude any ethical concerns or reflections. A densification tool that individuates and allocate different rights to different people must be defendable and justifiable. Why is this tool better and more just than others? Authors should address this issue and their ethical concerns must be clearly stated. The problem I have in accepting a tool of this kind is that authors do not discuss its main ethical-social implications. This is a crucial issue.
|
The tool is used as a guidance for making an overall density plan of Bergen. At present, the property owners densify without an overall plan at strategic locations. In most cases it leads to private car dependent solutions, with public space with poor urban qualities for street life. As we found out, these random densification processes take place in areas with high spatial integration of the street and road network. We added a line on this is added in the text (lines 561-564 and 593)
|
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a good paper and it can be published as it is, in its current form. However, I was expecting the authors to take more into consideration the two comments advanced during the first revision round. Both the ethical and theoretical concerns are not minimal aspects but key elements.
