“Architectural Acupuncture” in Urban Morphology Studies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well conceived. No special remarks need to be reported to the author. Only minor details.
When it comes to strategies conceived for the Berlin Neues Museum and the J. Simon Gallerie, it might be relevant to specific that restoration works of the Berlin Neues Museum is the result of a team work of the Chipperfield Architects Office of Berlin, while the Simon Gallerie is mainly the effort of its design director and partner Alexander Schwarz, along with David Chipperfield.
The Siza station of Naples is now open to the public although not fully complite.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper is intriguing and the references provided are rich.
Some suggestions can be made specifically on the structure of the paper.
The introduction is too concise, it does not provide a clear overview of the structure and the goal of the paper and the research: It should be improved by explaining the general structure of the paper and what is the aim of the research.
In the “background” chapter (2.) a meaningful and exhaustive overview through a rich literature review of the topic of acupuncture related to urban morphology is provided. In this chapter, a long part is dedicated to explaining how urban form is linked to historical, cultural, and economic phenomena, which seems to be a digression from the general topic.
The contents of the Chapter “Materials” (3.) do not present materials of the research but continue to build up the general frame of the research firstly resuming morphological studies and their relationship with geographical studies, then expanding on studies about the relationship between territory and city, and a comparison between the different national schools of morphological studies. A specific paragraph is dedicated to the semiology of forms recalling the different authors who developed this topic. In the whole paragraph, there is no mention of the materials of the research: maps, surveys, projects, data collection, or others.
In chapter (4.) Methods, the methods described are the methods used by selected authors to define urban morphology, urban types, and urban forms. Through three sub-paragraphs (The semantic meaning of parcel geometry, Connection, nodes, and stripes of relevance, The osmotic relationship between fabric and building type) the author describes how the urban pattern is generated. This is related to the methods of generation of the urban form, but nothing is said about the methods of the research. Furthermore, the main concept announced in the title, namely acupuncture, is not developed nether cited in this paragraph.
The conclusion paragraph is barely the summary of the previous two paragraphs. No innovative conclusion are brought here, just a description of the relationship between urban form and historical phenomenon and the recall of the importance of ancient and historical maps as witnesses of the territory and city transformations. In the last part of the paragraph, some interesting case studies to explain the concept of acupuncture are explained. They should have been the focus of the paper and not just briefly illustrated in the end.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA very interesting conceptual and methodological paper, discussing the link between urban morphology and urban acupuncture. Some restructuring is needed, above all in the introduction, in section 2 and in a last section to be added as conclusion. More specific points are developed in what follows.
The introduction is too cryptic. Could the author make his point easier to understand? This should be a strategic section, explaining the goals and the structure of the paper.
Section 2 is very challenging for the reader. The author should insert verbs in all the sentences, in order to make his statements clear. There should also be more direct links to what follows in the paper.
Figure 4. Reference should be made to the author of the chapter these images come from, Merlin was only the editor of the anthology of texts.
Page 6, lines 240-241: “the French school (Levy, Castex, Panerai, etc.) deserves credit for having developed a historical-geographical approach”. This passage is controversial. The historical-geographical approach is generally recognized as the contribution of the British school of urban morphology (for one, see the book “J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology” published by Springer in 2019).
Page 7 Section 4 should not be called Method but something more specific like “Methodology of urban morphology”
Page 10, first paragraph: check the last sentence before Quaroni’s quotation. Line 365: “in the aptly”? Lines 365-366: specify Via Giulia in Rome.
Figures 7 and 8 need references to sources.
Page 11 Section 5 should not be called Conclusion, because it is not a conclusion but the development of the paper linking urban morphology to urban acupuncture. I would suggest a title like “From urban morphology to urban acupuncture”.
Page 12, line 472: a sentence could be welcome to introduce the example by Chipperfield and Schward in Berlin, after having dealt with the example in Rome.
Page 13, line 484: the reference to Alexander’s quotation is missing both in the text and in the list of references at the end of the text.
A proper conclusion section is missing and should be added.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWhile the vocabulary choices are noteworthy for their accuracy, the overall sentence structure often hinders the text's clarity. Many sentences are complex, elliptic and lengthy, exceeding five lines and lacking verbs, which can make them hard to understand. Breaking down these longer sentences and incorporating verbs would significantly improve the text's readability. This is particularly true for the first two sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been significantly improved, all the reviews have been addressed.
Author Response
I have read the comments and I am grateful for the appreciation received for the changes and variations made. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe new Introduction and Conclusion sections have been greatly appreciated. The goals of the paper are now clear and the reader can understand the relationship between urban morphological analysis and the practice of “architectural acupuncture”.
New references have been added as well as some interesting passages in the text.
However, the five following points should be addressed.
Lines 270-271: “the French school (Levy, Castex, Panerai, etc.) deserves credit for having developed a historical-geographical approach”. This passage is controversial, had already been raised in the previous reviewing phase and has not been correctly adressed. What is controversial is the attribution of the historical-geographical approach to the French school, whereas this approach is generally recognized as the most specific contribution of the British school of urban morphology (for one, see the book “J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology” published by Springer in 2019).
Lines 457-467: this section seems an unnecessary addition, by referring to specific “research” that was never presented in the text. It is suggested to remove it.
Line 546: a sentence should introduce the example by Chipperfield and Schwarz in Berlin, after having dealt with the example in Rome. This point had already been raised in the previous reviewing phase and has not been addressed.
Lines 609-637: this section must be moved after line 587, as a fourth case study, and before the conclusion section.
Starting with reference no. 17, the numbering of references is wrong. Please check and modify accordingly. Indeed, references go up to 69 in the text, but are limited to 45 in the References section.
A few typos could also be detected:
Line 140: Castex instead of Catex.
Line 261: elements instead of lements.
Line 591: we can understand instead of we can understand us.
Line 660: Mumford instead of Munford. Anyway, it is suggested to cite the original English version of the work.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
An effort was made to simplify the language of the Background section, even if many sentences remain too long or lack the main verb.
It is suggested that the Editor decides on the quality of the language, but it seems necessary at least to simplify the language of the abstract by making shorter and clearer sentences.
Author Response
I reviewed the abstract and clarified the stance on the controversial issue of the historical-geographical school regarding the development of morphology in Italy. I deleted lines 457-467 and added an introductory sentence about the Chipperfield example in Berlin. I moved lines 609-637, revised the citations, and corrected typographical errors. Finally, as suggested, I revised the sentences related to the Background paragraph.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
