Next Article in Journal
ImageOP: The Image Dataset with Religious Buildings in the World Heritage Town of Ouro Preto for Deep Learning Classification
Next Article in Special Issue
Revitalizing the Canale Maggiore in Parma: Enhancing a Rural Area Through Hydroelectric Power and Historical Preservation
Previous Article in Journal
Integrating Emerging Technologies with Digital Twins for Heritage Building Conservation: An Interdisciplinary Approach with Expert Insights and Bibliometric Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urban Historiography and Graphic Reconstruction of a Historic Area in Valencia, Spain
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Analysis of the Urban Transformations Derived from Railway Housing Construction in Spain During Francoism (1939–1975): An Underestimated Heritage in Use

Heritage 2024, 7(11), 6480-6498; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7110301
by Aurora Martínez-Corral 1,*, Domingo Cuéllar 2 and Tomás L. Domínguez Rodrigo 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Heritage 2024, 7(11), 6480-6498; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7110301
Submission received: 20 October 2024 / Revised: 13 November 2024 / Accepted: 15 November 2024 / Published: 20 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cultural Heritage as a Contributor to Territorial/Urban Resilience)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A first observation has to do with the title, which is quite long, including three full stops. Maybe this can be shortened in some way but in the end it remains a matter of preference by the authors.

Is the word “casuistry” the one you wish to use in the abstract? Maybe this refers to the Spanish “caserio” (i.e., hamlet or small agglomeration of buildings), given the sentence. In any case, please double-check. Also, expressions such as “the arrival of the dictatorship” could be rephrased as “introduction” or “start”, or similar, followed by some different wording. Many people worldwide might be vaguely aware of Spanish political history but “the dictatorship” is chronologically more useful to Spanish readers than to others. A few similar issues occur along the paper and I would suggest re-reading it, bearing in mind the audience that is targeted by publishing in MDPI Heritage. In addition, some text review is needed (e.g., “forced workers to make … commuting”, etc.

Regarding the substance, the stated aim is to determine urban planning and organic growth prior to railroad-connected housing projects (p. 4). There is again a reference to the political reality, the Franco regime, and one sentence on page 2 had very briefly indicated the concentration of regional railway companies into a national structure. It seems this is a key determinant for understanding social housing so causality would need to be explicit.

The methodological process is explained visually in Figure 2, immediately followed by a narrative simplification/interpretation, which is OK. However, what is arguably clear for the authors requires a lot of conceptualizing from the reader and ideally this should not be the case. Shapes and forms and evolutions in time are described correctly, intertwined with “as observable in city a or city b”, but in a way that becomes rather abstract and therefore hard to follow.

Apart from the building configuration in itself, the open spaces and sociocultural places are important, given the fact the study focuses on the daily life of railway communities. I do understand this paper cannot fully tackle all angles and that it mainly deals with architectural rather than wider urban dynamics. A few suggestions for current or future research, though: 1) a better use of georeferenced analyses, as GIS is used for illustrative purposes only (by the way, the recurrent use of the Spanish acronym SIG should be changed to the English GIS); 2) a more robust yet not necessarily longer context explaining why all this happens in a specific period; 3) some of the conclusions may come over as opinionated, which is fine but this should be supported by some additional evidence. For instance, it seems logical that RENFE would build their family compounds next to the railroad and not somewhere else. One might even argue this would have resulted not in segregation and isolation, as stated in the paper, but in the opposite – although in many cases surrounding infrastructures may have been lacking. Some of the conclusions seem to stem from current-day social criteria, not from those of the mid-20th century. Perhaps at the time these dwellings represented an improvement to the standard of life. This is an aspect that I feel needs more nuance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some review is required.

Author Response

Dear Editor, 

Please see the attachment with the author´s reply to reviewer 1.

Kind regards,

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article analyzes the housing construction models of the Spanish railway company RENFE in the second half of the 20th century. It is an interesting article, well documented and from which more interesting conclusions could be drawn than those that the authors intend. The objectives must be focused and more explanatory, the research question can be formulated explicitly and adjusted to the reality of the object of study. The bibliographic study has not delved into the "company towns" model, although in the conclusion it appears to establish this. Nor is there any reference to the people who were behind these housing solutions, whether RENFE leaders or the technicians hired by the company, so the analysis remains in morphological issues. It would be interesting, for example, to delve into the differences between RENFE housing and those of railway cooperatives, where they could develop the comparison between company towns and social housing in the Spain of the Dictatorship. In summary, I believe that the article must be reviewed following the elements indicated before it can be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The expression "In short" (five times) sounds very colloquial. There are also sentences difficult to understand. A grammar check would be necessary.

Author Response

Dear Editor, 

Please see the attachment with the author´s reply to reviewer 2.

Kind regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the changes made and have no further observations. Best of luck.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I sincerely congratulate you for the review of your work. Congratulations

Back to TopTop