Urban Transformation: Analyzing the Combined Forces of Vacant Building Occupancy and Socio-Economic Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is an excellent article, well structured and argued with a clear methodology and contextualized well within the urban regeneration literature and makes a valuable contribution to the field. My suggestions are therefore few and minor as outlined below:

1. Terminology: a range of terms for the approach to 'urban transformation' discussed for urban transformation are identified in lines 44-45 (building requalification, rehabilitation, renovation, reutilization, repair, restoration) suggesting their equivalence - whereas there are some subtle differences between some of them. Throughout the paper some of these (and others) are used interchangeably, notably requalification, rehabilitation, revitalization. I think it would be better to be more consistent with a clear definition of the meaning of the preferred term. If requalification is the lead term as suggested in lines 44-45, then it requires a definition.

2. Word usage: there are a few words used that could be better expressed: eg the word "surrounds" in line 56 might better be "encompasses" or "incorporates", if that is what is meant; and "autonomous fraction" (line133) might better be expressed as "autonomous parts" 

3. Cross referencing: Lines 365-373 outline the positive contributions of repurposing vacant buildings without any cross references to substantiate the claimed benefits, unlike lines 373-386 where the negative impacts are cross referenced. Likewise, cross references to support statements about benefits in lines 528-531 in the Conclusion would also be desirable.

4. Text size on Figures with maps: Most of the place names on the maps are so small that they are virtually unreadable. This could be improved by increasing the size of the maps to full page width inside the margins and increasing the size of the text.

5. Page breaks in Tables: A number of tables are interrupted by page breaks. They would be better positioned as wholly on one page, (I realize this may be more a comment for the editors than the authors)

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article is generally well written in English with minor issues only:

1. word usage can be improved in two places (see main report).

2. More consistency needed in use of terminology for "urban requalification", or related term, together with its definition (see main report).

Author Response

Please see the attachment with the response to reviewer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting. The way vacant buildings are approached can be a catalyst for discussions on spatial urban issues, social issues, and economic considerations. In order to make the article even better, I suggest that the "Results and Discussion" section be divided into two and become more extensive. I would also suggest that additional proposals be made for the future use of these vacant spaces depending on their form, as characterized by the typology of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment with replies to reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf