Promoting Social Interaction through Participatory Architecture. Experimentation, Experience, Evaluation in a Social Housing Complex (Grand’Goule, Poitiers, 1974–2021)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Number: MDPI-1560571

Reviewer comments

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

The paper is original because it focuses on evaluating a social housing complex from the 1970s focusing on participation in design and participation in usage. This is a relevant topic in the context of a global housing crisis, unwanted isolation and segregation; and therefore, the need for alternative forms of housing development.

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

The paper has a good literature review. However, the paper can benefit from focusing on concepts such as social interaction and social integration (instead of human relations). The project history (3), the participative process (4) and social life in the SAP (5) are the strong parts of the paper and in the ways the paper relates to the literature. However, the paper lacks a clear position regarding theory of science and any analytical framework underlying the analysis in gaps between intentions and realizations through participation (7), which is the weakest part of the paper. The author writes in section 2 that “the intention is to draw hypotheses of the determinants of the success and failures”. This indicates that the paper draws on Positivism. The paper could benefit of having critical realism as a metatheory. Critical realism vindicates and deepens the understanding of ontology, arguing that the world is structured, differentiated, stratified (Danermark et al., 2002, p.5). Reality is stratified, consisting of three domains –the empirical, the actual and the real (Sayer, 2000; Danermark et al. 2002). The historical account of the paper and the material that describes the events at the empirical level are very detailed. However, it fails when trying to shift to causal mechanisms and building plausible explanation in section 7. The paper will benefit if drawing on the Resolution, Redescription, Retrodiction, Elimination, Identification and Correction (RRREI-C) model “Enlightened Common Sense. The Philosophy of Critical Realism” (Bhaskar, 2016) and “Interdisciplinarity and Wellbeing. A Critical Realist Theory of Interdisciplinarity (Bhaskar, Danermark and Price, 2018).

 

3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?

The methodology needs major revision and improvement.

The main method is case study research but it is not written about it in the paper. The author can consult “Case study research: design and methods” (Yin, 2014).

Techniques for data collection include qualitative interviews to inhabitants (around 12 inteviews?), journalistic articles from 1974 and other written material, and the archives of the architects including technical drawings. The methods employed are appropriate, although major additions are needed in the Methods section.

The selection of case studies needs to be elaborated better (why was this case study selected? Is it a crucial case, a revelatory case, or because of the relevance of the case, etc? This should be justified in relation to literature.

Why were different techniques for data used? Data analysis should be made explicit. What types of residents were interviewed? What type of qualitative analysis was conducted to the interview transcripts? How were the journalistic articles and the archives of the architects analysed?

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?

In general the case study is presented in a structured way and the analysis focuses on plausible causes underlying differences between architectural intentions and actual forms of participation in the design (Table 1); as well as the differences between architectural intentions and project in its usage (Table 2).

The analysis can benefit from using counterfactual thinking (what if…?) and absenting the absences: i.e. tenants organization, users’ agency, etc. What factors have limited user involvement? The focus is only on the spatial dimension but it is missing an understanding of what limited social integration (the social dimension).

 

5. Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?

The paper needs to identify how the work can contribute to improve current practice on user involvement and try to identify lessons or recommendations for future housing development.

Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

In general, the paper express is case and uses the technical language of the field. However, the manuscript needs a revision regarding good practice of Academic English to improve readability.

Detailed comments according to page/line numbers in the manuscript

See corrections and suggestions written manually in the scanned manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

You send us a revision request for the following manuscript on March 8, 2022.

Manuscript ID: architecture-1560571
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Promoting social interaction through participatory architecture. Experimentation, experience, evaluation in a social housing complex (Grand’Goule, Poitiers, 1974-2021)
Authors: Benjamin LOISEAU, Stéphane SAFIN, Antonella TUFANO

We wish to submit our revision for consideration by Architecture, Special Issue "Contemporary Issues in Participatory Architecture".

At first, we wish to warmly thanks the reviewers for their very insightful comments. As asked, we developed the introduction, adding a brief outline of the article to help readers understand the article's structure. We strongly developed the methodology section, making explicit what were is our data set and how we analyzed it.  As requested by the reviewers, we also strengthened the theoretical part. The analysis of the construction of social complexes was put into perspective with the work of Lefebvre in Le droit à la ville. The paper now benefit on focusing on new concepts such as retroactive data, social interaction, case study and co-design. The larger part of our edits concern the discussion section, which concentrated most of the reviewers’ comments. It has been entirely re-written and re-organized. It is now separated in two distinct sections : section 8 consist in a factual diagnostic focusing on the differences between architects’ intentions and actual implementations and uses (short and long term); and in section 9, we propose a set of interpretation about the factors underlying those differences and focus on continuity in participation. In this latter section, the paper trend to identify how to improve current practice on user involvement and try to identify lessons or recommendations for future housing development. Finally, the conclusion expanded and the manuscript had a revision regarding good practice of Academic English to improve readability.

In this paper, we show that, as a very complex and fragile process, enabling the active participation of people in the design and use of a large-scale architectural project is far from obvious and suffers from difficulties of several types. This is significant because it dissect the practices, cross the views of users and professionals and lead to a retrospective analysis of the participative process, its successes and failures.

We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by Architecture because it can inform contemporary participative architectural projects in the future. The research undertaken here in collective housing with common areas resonates strongly with the reflections developed in the framework of participative housing today.

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper "Promoting human relations through participation: Experimentation, experience, evaluation in a social housing complex (Grand’Goule, Poitiers, 1974-2021)".

Review.
- The title is suitable for the paper and the abstract is good and clear. Also, the goals are clearly defined.
- There are some flaws in the writing and punctuation.
- The paper touches on an important topic concerning the social housing complexes in Paris and how the residents are involved.
- The introduction/theoretical part is quite short.
- The paper makes an interesting analysis of the construction of social complexes on the outskirts of Paris. However, this analysis could be more in-depth and, above all, less descriptive.
- The study moves very quickly to the case study (history, etc.). Although that context is important, the paper does not contain a truly theoretical part. 
- Saying this, the paper lacks a theoretical part that deepens issues related, for example, to public housing in France in the so-called Trente Glorieuses.
- Sections 3.2., 3.3., 4.1., 4.2., 4.3., 4.4 are excessively descriptive and do not contain references to other academic works. Sections 5 and 6 are also very descriptive.
- The final findings and remarks (section 7) lack value and significance. It is not clear to the reader how the authors reached their conclusions.
- In general, the authors should focus on a more in-depth theoretical part. Also, the authors should better explain the scientific method to reach the remarks indicated in section 7. 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

You send us a revision request for the following manuscript on March 8, 2022.

Manuscript ID: architecture-1560571
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Promoting social interaction through participatory architecture. Experimentation, experience, evaluation in a social housing complex (Grand’Goule, Poitiers, 1974-2021)
Authors: Benjamin LOISEAU, Stéphane SAFIN, Antonella TUFANO

We wish to submit our revision for consideration by Architecture, Special Issue "Contemporary Issues in Participatory Architecture".

At first, we wish to warmly thanks the reviewers for their very insightful comments. As asked, we developed the introduction, adding a brief outline of the article to help readers understand the article's structure. We strongly developed the methodology section, making explicit what were is our data set and how we analyzed it.  As requested by the reviewers, we also strengthened the theoretical part. The analysis of the construction of social complexes was put into perspective with the work of Lefebvre in Le droit à la ville. The paper now benefit on focusing on new concepts such as retroactive data, social interaction, case study and co-design. The larger part of our edits concern the discussion section, which concentrated most of the reviewers’ comments. It has been entirely re-written and re-organized. It is now separated in two distinct sections : section 8 consist in a factual diagnostic focusing on the differences between architects’ intentions and actual implementations and uses (short and long term); and in section 9, we propose a set of interpretation about the factors underlying those differences and focus on continuity in participation. In this latter section, the paper trend to identify how to improve current practice on user involvement and try to identify lessons or recommendations for future housing development. Finally, the conclusion expanded and the manuscript had a revision regarding good practice of Academic English to improve readability.

In this paper, we show that, as a very complex and fragile process, enabling the active participation of people in the design and use of a large-scale architectural project is far from obvious and suffers from difficulties of several types. This is significant because it dissect the practices, cross the views of users and professionals and lead to a retrospective analysis of the participative process, its successes and failures.

We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by Architecture because it can inform contemporary participative architectural projects in the future. The research undertaken here in collective housing with common areas resonates strongly with the reflections developed in the framework of participative housing today.

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

The chosen theme is original and very interesting and the paper is well structured. The methodology is clear and results are well presented. The only part of the paper that should be improved is the conclusion. I find the conclusion a little bit modest and I would suggest it should be slightly expanded.

Best regards.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

You send us a revision request for the following manuscript on March 8, 2022.

Manuscript ID: architecture-1560571
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Promoting social interaction through participatory architecture. Experimentation, experience, evaluation in a social housing complex (Grand’Goule, Poitiers, 1974-2021)
Authors: Benjamin LOISEAU, Stéphane SAFIN, Antonella TUFANO

We wish to submit our revision for consideration by Architecture, Special Issue "Contemporary Issues in Participatory Architecture".

At first, we wish to warmly thanks the reviewers for their very insightful comments. As asked, we developed the introduction, adding a brief outline of the article to help readers understand the article's structure. We strongly developed the methodology section, making explicit what were is our data set and how we analyzed it.  As requested by the reviewers, we also strengthened the theoretical part. The analysis of the construction of social complexes was put into perspective with the work of Lefebvre in Le droit à la ville. The paper now benefit on focusing on new concepts such as retroactive data, social interaction, case study and co-design. The larger part of our edits concern the discussion section, which concentrated most of the reviewers’ comments. It has been entirely re-written and re-organized. It is now separated in two distinct sections : section 8 consist in a factual diagnostic focusing on the differences between architects’ intentions and actual implementations and uses (short and long term); and in section 9, we propose a set of interpretation about the factors underlying those differences and focus on continuity in participation. In this latter section, the paper trend to identify how to improve current practice on user involvement and try to identify lessons or recommendations for future housing development. Finally, the conclusion expanded and the manuscript had a revision regarding good practice of Academic English to improve readability.

In this paper, we show that, as a very complex and fragile process, enabling the active participation of people in the design and use of a large-scale architectural project is far from obvious and suffers from difficulties of several types. This is significant because it dissect the practices, cross the views of users and professionals and lead to a retrospective analysis of the participative process, its successes and failures.

We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by Architecture because it can inform contemporary participative architectural projects in the future. The research undertaken here in collective housing with common areas resonates strongly with the reflections developed in the framework of participative housing today.

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been significantly improved.