The Evolution of Business Center Buildings and Prospects for Their Adaptation in the Post-Pandemic Period in Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

This article has already been reviewed before. The most important issues that were pointed out, both by me and the rest of the reviewers, have been greatly improved. In any case, it should be noted that the excessive length of the article has been correctly resolved. However, it would still be necessary to review other structural issues already mentioned. I encourage the authors to reconsider the comments on the materials and methods part. There is still some confusion and, for example, part of the results are included in this section, which extends this part of the article without need. The conclusions have also been improved, although it would be interesting to better clarify the relationship of the study with the covid context.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for Your attention to our work “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

In the Materials and Methods section, clarification is made on the specifics and sequence of the study. We believe that the study of the features of business centers in Kazakhstan is the basis for solving the problem of post-covid adaptation. Accordingly, the entire data set is included in the Materials and Methods section. And the Discussion section is devoted to the problem of adaptation.

In Conclusion, an explanation of the features of the post-covid situation with the operation of business centers is added.

In the process of making changes to the manuscript, a conflict arose. Your colleague-reviewer recommended to include summary tables with images of business centers in the manuscript. We don't know how to solve this contradiction: these tables have been deleted based on earlier comments. We took into account this recommendation of Your colleague-reviewer and supplemented the manuscript with these tables (Figures 9-22). We understand that this may not be correct, and we apologize. We would like to keep these images in the manuscript, as we think they are important for the article. However, if You and the Editorial Board deem it necessary to remove these images, then we are ready to do so. Once again, excuse us, but we have a difficult situation related to some contradiction in the recommendations for correcting the manuscript.

In addition, on the recommendation of your colleague-reviewer, we have included in the methods and materials section the layout of business centers in major cities of Kazakhstan. It also increased the volume of this part of the manuscript. We also leave the need to preserve these schemes and descriptions to You and the Editorial Board for consideration and decision.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and You will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The article, although highly theoretical, is generally very interesting, fully presenting the perspectives and alternatives that can be developed in order for business center buildings to acquire new identities and new roles in local communities.

The categorizations put forward follow a logical approach and the conclusions to which the article leads are particularly important and useful.

I would only suggest that more emphasis be placed on elements of business center buildings that promote smarter features of cities, as a particularly important point of view. As for example in the articles:

Manika, S. (2020). Transforming Vacant Commercial Spaces: From Localized Hotspots of Urban Shrinkage to “Smart” Co-Working Places. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 8(06), 86.

Umair, M., Cheema, M. A., Cheema, O., Li, H., & Lu, H. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on IoT adoption in healthcare, smart homes, smart buildings, smart cities, transportation and industrial IoT. Sensors, 21(11), 3838.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You so much for your attention to our work “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan”.

In accordance with Your recommendations, we have included the works you indicated in the list of references. They are very interesting in the aspect of the problem under study. A brief mention of this trend is included in the section describing possible options for using the vacated spaces.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and You will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors thank you for presenting your research.  the theme is very interesting and current.  I encourage you to continue this topic also in other countries close to you, it will be of great interest to the scientific community.  I only point out that you can add an urban map with the location of the shopping centers in the cities.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your attention to our work “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

In accordance with your recommendation, the manuscript includes diagrams reflecting the position of business centers in large cities of Kazakhstan (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6). Relevant brief descriptions are given.

We hope that we were able to change the manuscript correctly, and you will be able to recommend the manuscript for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

I read the article “The evolution of business center buildings and the prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan”. The topic dealt with is interesting and the research was developed with a well-conducted and methodologically structured scientific approach; the bibliography is adequate.

2. Materials and methods 

I would suggest some changes and additions for a better understanding of the text and in particular:

- insert images (plans, perspective views, etc.) relating to the buildings mentioned, possibly also a summary and illustrative table of the same. Describe more the typological and architectural characteristics of the same.

- Insert a map of Kazakhstan indicating the cities mentioned in the text.

- standardize the graphical representation of the building plans in figures 5 and 6 and to insert a thematic legend for greater understanding, explaining in greater detail the hypotheses and contents.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your attention to our work “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

In accordance with your recommendation, the manuscript includes a map of Kazakhstan with an indication of major cities, business centers in which are the subject of study (Figure 1).

Tables with images reflecting the main characteristics of the considered business centers have also been added (figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22).

Unfortunately It is not possible to standardize the graphic images of the plans, which are used as examples for reconstruction, due to the lack of the possibility to use design materials. And the available images have a different character. We tried to make the drawings themselves uniform, superimposed on the basic images. We partially managed to solve the collision You indicated in the example in Picture 27. But here we had the opportunity to use design materials (one of the authors of the manuscript, K.Samoilov, is the Chief architect of the project of this building).

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and you will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors, 

I appreciate your changes and they lead to a now complete and significant contribution.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The updated and revised version of the article is much clearer and more complete. The "graphization" of the numerous information contained considerably improves the understanding of the analyzes carried out and of the research in general. The new graphic contents decisively enrich and enhance the themes presented, making the study even clearer, interesting and rich in new research ideas.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work would benefit from a vast copy editing. The manuscript is very extensive and presents a lot of wandering around the subject.

The nice collection of material and ideas would benefit from a revision with the author putting things more clearly and succinctly and paying attention to what is the intended focus of the article.

All Figures should be inserted into the main text close to their first citation and must be numbered following their number of appearance. The manuscript presents a lot of images which are not owned by the authors and it is advisable to rethink the use of this graphic complement.

As  it is, the manuscript is greatly hindered by its extension and abuse of graphical parts, and is not suitable for Designs so it is  wise to reformulate it and incentive the authors to resubmit it.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

As You recommended, we have reduced the number of illustrations and the general descriptive part of the text. The positions on the research methodology have been clarified. The data on the works of other authors who studied various issues on the problem under consideration are detailed. A number of positions have been added on the possibilities of adapting existing business centers to new working conditions.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and you will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

What are the relationships between pandemic and business center buildings?

What are the adaptation????

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan".

In the context of the pandemic, the demand for rental space in business centers has sharply decreased. In the post-pandemic period, the demand for rental space has only partially recovered. As a result, a significant amount of space, and in some cases entire multi-storey buildings, remain unused. At the same time, the owners incur significant losses.

In this situation, there is a need to adapt existing business centers to work conditions, taking into account the need to maintain an optimal social distance. This implies the need for appropriate redevelopment. Another option is to convert business centers into residential buildings or hotels. These options are discussed in our article.

We have reduced the number of illustrations and the general descriptive part of the text. The positions on the research methodology have been clarified. The data on the works of other authors who studied various issues on the problem under consideration are detailed. A number of positions have been added on the possibilities of adapting existing business centers to new working conditions.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and you will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank you again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper feels overly long and lacking in focus. The authors need to really focus in on what is their research question - and decide if the paper is either a catalogue of different forms of business centres or about the approaches and ways of designing business centres in a post-covid era where future epidemics / pandemics are increasingly likely (e.g. via avian flu etc) - which I think is a much more interesting focus...

Abstract

This needs to be read through and checked for gramma. For example, the last sentence is incomplete "At this stage, the most promising [option?] for multi-storey complexes is their transformation into hotels or residential buildings. 

Introduction

There are similar problems with English in this section which need to be checked in the introduction. For example, "From the point of view of studying the problem of the development of business centers in the aspect of architecture" - should be reworded, e.g. to "In studying the future development of business centres in relation to their architectural form and function..." 

Fundamentally, further literature search and analysis is required, in order to establish a clear research question and problem that is being addressed at the outset. 

The review of literature, in particular lines 78 to 106, is just a long list of a bunch of references with no detail, analysis or critique regarding what those papers actually say about the topic. The paper says there is no literature regarding this specific issue. I found a number of papers with a quick search in Google scholar - and there are certainly others. For example:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/753/2/022062/meta

https://www.crcresearch.org/solutions-agenda/multi-functional-spaces

There is no reference to literature that examines the impact of infectious diseases on the design and use of the built environment, including business centres - which is the more interesting aspect of the paper. For example: 

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijssp-07-2020-0262/full/html?casa_token=Vll0pszjj1IAAAAA:PLNtXXPoxw9AhYeNPWBrXLGWfXKNsa4NYp3tsaD4s6xLS1gO5SX6VpMZAIm6Rmc6DHFXQkCgtM8Dhp7xrdMt72qC-dsnvfZcJ9j_g33i0YTLzxvxQwVo

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670720305710?casa_token=hHQnnAbejxgAAAAA:RHOddpwVk-0F5WvfRIxCrHR8lLokNIhYBlyhvCuD54gnuf-KUIq1Yx-wRTBEGUpEOqUI_aqXO8o

Materials and methods

Please give greater detail regarding the definition and rationale for selecting the different characteristics identified in relation to business centres (lines 159-161) and how that helps to answer your research question.  For example, the paper refers to business centers being 'open and closed' - what does this refer to, how is that assessed?  How were these characteristics identified, what was the rationale for their inclusion? Why were other factors not considered, e.g. energy consumption; how the centres function in relation to with surrounding urban form / neighbourhood - active frontages; location of sites regarding access to public transport, proximity to communities, adaptability of function etc? 

The description of the evolution of business centres (lines 367-892) is overly long needs to be distilled down into a more generalised description of the typology of centres for each period that is identified, with just one or two illustrations that exemplify that typology and functionality, rather that a long catalogue of examples. If a long list of illustrations is required to address the research question, then it should come in table form in the appendix.  There are no references to literature in this section - if this is entirely informed by primary evidence / perspectives of the authors then that needs to be indicated in the method.

Results

There is no details that capture the health implications of the different types of business centres and how users engage with different locations, typology, design and layout. For example, how interior design can affect the movement and flow of customers / users, ventilation etc, or how those factors might be assessed?

Discussion

The presentation of typologies of business centres in the results is overly long - it is unclear what is the purpose and value of certain figures e.g. figures 38 and 39. It is unclear what work the results section does to inform the discussion. If the focus of the paper is about the impact of covid on the future purpose, functionality and design of business centres - much greater attention should be paid on questions such as the adaptability and resilience of the built form, and the emerging literature that is examining that - as referred to above.   

Correct numbering of figure 4 (Line 2046)

The discussion about learning from examples where adaptation (repurposing) has been applied is interesting and should be developed, including examining the costs and challenges of repurposing as well as benefits e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4669

Conclusion

The conclusion has interesting points but reads more like a discussion. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

We have made the grammatical corrections You indicated. We have reduced the number of illustrations and the general descriptive part of the text. The positions on the research methodology have been clarified. The data on the works of other authors who studied various issues on the problem under consideration are detailed. A number of positions have been added on the possibilities of adapting existing business centers to new working conditions.

The presented analysis of the structure of business centers and their characteristics is important from the point of view of determining the specifics of their development in Kazakhstan. And this concerned exclusively the space-planning and architectural and artistic solutions of the buildings of business centers themselves. The issues of energy consumption, the relationship with the urban context and transport infrastructure, proximity to the places of residence of employees and a number of other problems were excluded from the analysis, since it was not directly related to the problem of internal redevelopment.

A comprehensive analysis taking into account these problems would lead to a significant increase in the text of the article. However, you are absolutely right, and in our future work we will take into account the need for a comprehensive view of the problem. Similarly, the problem of interior design in relation to the movement of employees remained practically out of consideration. But some questions were, in accordance with your comments, emphasized. This is the problem of elevators and stairs, the size of which does not allow you to maintain an optimal social distance.

In accordance with your instructions, brief financial characteristics concerning the possible conversion of business center buildings are provided.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and you will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The work presented is interesting and proposes a study that is correctly framed in the theme of the journal. However, the manuscript is too long to be published as an article and the structure should be better adjusted to the scientific field. The following are proposed as improvements to be implemented:

- Considerably reduce the length of the manuscript. Perhaps a better distinction could be made between the article and supplementary materials.

- Adjust the summary to the scheme: 1) Background; 2) Methods; 3) Results and 4) Conclusion.

- Define the objective in the introduction, explaining the novelty it brings.

- Improve the materials and methods section, specifying the type of research, its design and scope. The analysis process carried out is not clear, nor is the type of study correctly defined. Likewise, it is necessary to eliminate everything that does not correspond to materials or methods.

- Improve the references of the images used. The obtaining source is identified, but it is not clear if it is the original source or if there is permission to reproduce.

- In the conclusions, the parameters of the study should not be indicated. It would be necessary to make more exhaustively explicit the relationship between the objectives set and the results obtained. The conclusions are very limited, showing that the research only manages to identify the presence of two types of business centers. Likewise, it is not clear what this study manages to contribute to the field of architecture.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

As You recommended, we have reduced the number of illustrations and the general descriptive part of the text. The positions on the research methodology have been clarified. The data on the works of other authors who studied various issues on the problem under consideration are detailed. A number of positions have been added on the possibilities of adapting existing business centers to new working conditions. All images are taken from open sources.

The adaptation of business centers to work in new conditions or their conversion into hotels and residential buildings is a specific architectural task. This task requires detailed study, which can be the subject of a separate work based on work experience. But for this, significant factual material must accumulate.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and you will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work would benefit from a second vast copy editing. The manuscript is still very extensive and still presents a lot of wandering around the subject.

The manuscript was reviewed but the manuscript should be more clearly and succinctly and paying attention to what is the intended focus of the article.

The manuscript presents a lot of images which are not owned by the authors and it is especially advisable to rethink the use of this graphic complement as we referred on the first review.

As  it is, the manuscript is still greatly hindered by its extension and abuse of graphical parts, and is not suitable for Designs so it is  wise to once again reformulate it and incentive the authors to resubmit it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing the second version of our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

As You recommended, we have reduced the number of illustrations (in Figure 19), leaving only those without which, in our opinion, the manuscript will not be complete. Another general descriptive part of the text has been shortened. A number of provisions on the specifics of redevelopment of buildings have been clarified.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and You will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments are revised.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing the second version of our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan”.

We have once again reduced the number of illustrations and the general descriptive part of the text. Additional characteristics were given to the mentioned works of other researchers. Added works related to the problems of redevelopment. A number of provisions have been added on the specifics of the proposed redevelopment.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and You will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank you again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The grammatical structure and English is still poor throughout and there is still a need to edit the length of the paper to emphasize the key points the researchers are trying to make. The abstract also needs to be re-written to improve the English. 

The literature review is remains descriptive rather that a critical review and analysis that informs the research question identified in the method. 

The discussion and conclusion talk about the possibility of converting office blocks to residential or hotel uses but do not consider whether the typology, massing, layout, design of business centres are amenable to those alternative uses, in a way that would allow for decent standard of accommodation, e.g. noise insulation, internal space (room heights etc), access to daylight, external layout and location (e.g. access to public transport and social amenities). See UK example reference: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003095828-4/planning-deregulation-material-impacts-everyday-practices-ben-clifford

The researchers should critically review other papers that highlight the potential problems and opportunities for converting business centre usage. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing the second version of our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

The volume of the text has been further reduced. From the point of view of improving the English language, the Abstract has been partially corrected.

Brief comments on the relevance of the listed works to the topic of the article have been added to the literature review.

The sizes of multi-storey buildings of business centers, which are located in the cities of Kazakhstan, fully correspond to the possibility of their redevelopment into residential buildings or hotels. The presence of two stairwells, a developed elevator system allows for optimal convenience of apartment operation, as well as safe evacuation (two stairwells) of residents in the event of a fire. Most buildings have underground parking. The height of all rooms (3.0 m or 3.3 m) is quite acceptable for apartments. Perimeter glazing of facades allows to solve the problem of illumination of residential premises.

When redeveloping buildings in Kazakhstan, it is impossible to lower the standards of optimal living conditions, since there is strict State regulation. Building Codes and Regulations have established optimal standards for both social housing (apartments provided by the State free of charge for veterans, orphans, disabled people, large families) and highly comfortable apartments sold on the real estate market. The design and construction process is strictly monitored by authorized Government agencies. If deviations from the current State standards are detected, the project will not be allowed to be implemented. Deviations from the project approved by the state authorities during the construction process are suppressed by the Author's and Technical supervision bodies.

Thank You so much for pointing out a study describing the problem of lowering the standard during construction in some countries. We have read with great interest the work you have indicated and have drawn the appropriate conclusions that will help in our further work.

Multi-storey business centers in the cities of Kazakhstan are located in the central parts of cities. There is a developed transport infrastructure, there are a sufficient number of catering and cultural and consumer services. Accordingly, residents of the new residential building get optimal access to all amenities. The only difficulty is the possible presence of insufficient yard area. But this problem can be solved by organizing semi-open spaces on one or more floors (the article provides examples of such solutions).

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and you will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article has improved considerably. Although it is still excessively long, I understand that it is justified due to the importance of the photographic material appearing in the main text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing the second version of our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

As you recommended, we have further reduced the number of illustrations (Figure 19) and the general descriptive part of the text.

Some clarifying comments to the literature review are given. A number of aspects on the redevelopment of business centers into residential buildings have been clarified.

We hope that the corrections made have improved the quality of the manuscript and you will be able to recommend it for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is still very extensive and still presents a lot of wandering around the subject.

The manuscript was reviewed but, as we have stated before, the manuscript should be more clearly and succinctly and paying attention to what is the intended focus of the article.

The manuscript still presents a lot of images which are not owned by the authors and it is especially advisable to rethink the use of this graphic complement as we referred on the first and on the second  review.

As  it is, the manuscript is still greatly hindered by its extension and abuse of graphical parts, and is not suitable for Designs so it is  wise pause the submision and largely reformulate it. The reviewer finds the manuscript improved but not enough to be published. The authors should  pay attention to what is the intended focus of the article as we stated twice and now once again. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing the second version of our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

In accordance with your comments, the following changes have been made to the manuscript:

- the text of the manuscript has been shortened;

- reduced the number of illustrations to 6 pieces;

- all photos are excluded from the illustrative series, with the exception of four necessary for drawings for the conversion of business centers into residential buildings and hotels;

- some positions in the list of references have been clarified;

- the description of the structure of business centers from "Results" has been transferred to "Materials and Methods", which, in our opinion, concretizes the purpose of the study.

We hope that we were able to change the manuscript correctly, and you will be able to recommend the manuscript for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is still over long and lacking in coherent narrative. The literature review remains a long list of papers without a critical analysis that distills down the main issues that are of particular interest for the study.

The results continue to lack coherence, containing long lists of features without a clear identification of the typological criteria that are of particular interest and why. Most of the current data could be captured in an appendix table, with associated examples and the main features presented listed in a distilled table, with a much shorter discussion about why those features were identified, and the implications for reoriganising business centres in the future. 

The neglect of thinking about implications of climate change (overheating of buildings, water availability etc) in the entire paper is a significant oversight.  

The conclusion reads more like a continuation of the discussion - as with the discussion, it needs to be much more concise and clear about the overall contribution of the work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for analyzing the second version of our article “The evolution of business center buildings and prospects for their adaptation in the post-pandemic period in Kazakhstan". We have tried to take into account all Your comments in the new version of the manuscript.

In accordance with your comments, the following changes have been made to the manuscript:

- the text of the manuscript has been shortened;

- reduced the number of illustrations to 6 pieces;

- all photos are excluded from the illustrative series, with the exception of four necessary for drawings for the conversion of business centers into residential buildings and hotels;

- some positions in the list of references have been clarified;

- the description of the structure of business centers from "Results" has been transferred to "Materials and Methods", which, in our opinion, concretizes the purpose of the study.

- added provisions on the use of "green standards" in construction during the reconstruction of business centers into residential buildings and hotels;

- shortened "Conclusion".

We hope that we were able to change the manuscript correctly, and you will be able to recommend the manuscript for publication.

Thank You again for the attention paid to our work.

Best regards,

Turar Uzakbayev, Konstantin Samoilov, Bolat Kuspangaliyev,

Gaukhar Sadvokasova, Lyazzat Nurkusheva

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf