Unpacking Shifts of Spatial Attributes and Typologies of Urban Identity in Heritage Assessment Post COVID-19 Using Chinatown, Melbourne, as a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

architecture-2560669-peer-review-v1

Review of:  Unpacking Shifts of Spatial Attributes and Typologies of Urban Identity in Heritage Assessment Post Covid-19 Using Melbourne Chinatown as a Case Study

Line 37f needs a reference on the mutability of heritage values. There is literature on shifting baselines with regard to heritage values.

Lines 60 to 81 and lines 83 to 104 are duplicated 

The Methodology section is weak and quite convoluted. Including text that is not methodology related. 

The values section is generally ok, but needs to include a mention/brief discussion on the mutability of values and the effects of intergenerational change/ shifting baselines, as well as commentary on the facts that heritage has contemporary relevance and that the common notion of “Preserving the Past for the Future” is flawed, although it underpins what the profession is by and large doing.

Line 139f         and what is also missing in the discourse the role of the assessors of these values, where he epistemology of the nominations and valuations is only rarely, if ever, examined (there is literature on this)

Section 3.2

The literature on current World Heritage driven concepts of urban areas is based on somewhat shallow scholarship, which ignores existing legal protection frameworks that can and should be brought to bear in this debate. An aspect that should be considered in the framing and that has been lost in the discussion are heritage conservation areas/ historical precincts / historic districts, which encompass a spatially circumscribed collection of heritage assets with a common theme, and where multi criteria can be and are applied. For a review of the heritage conservation areas concept (https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6070279)

This has also bearing on the discussion in section 4.3

Section 3.2.1. 

What could also be included here is some thought about the soundscape component of urban heritage which can to the fore when the bells in NSW and Vic stopped ringing during the COVID shutdowns and then restarted (there is literature on this)

Section 4

There needs to be a brief framing that discusses /described the COVID experience for Melbourne and the various extended lockdowns, which make Melbourne a very different case compared to for ex Sydney. Without this contextualisation the reader is left floundering. Also, given the proportion of overseas tourists as Chinatown users, the travel regimes/border closures, but international and interstate esp. between NSW and Vic needs to be mentioned in this contextual framing. (again there is literature on the historic trajectory of these border closures)

The discussion of the economic impact of the COVID pandemic us weak. There needs to be more discussion and use of the literature on the impact of this  on shopping, dining and dining out, as well as the development of black kitchens and food delivery via menulog, which saved many hospitality businesses from going under. Also some comment needs to be made about the societal shift caused by the pandemic that dining out has declined overall and dining-in (via food delivery sevrices0 ha increased….This has a bearing on the paper (there is literature on this)

A map of the area would have been helpful to situate the photos. Nor everybody is familiar with the place…

Line 349 typo “Chinatown Historia Precinct Act”

Line 382 assertion ending in line 382  needs a reference

Line 384          what is ‘recent’? give year

Line 385 assertion ending in line 385  needs a reference

Line 413          Expression: “Limited discussions have been made around…”

Figure 4           Be specific, which laneway.

Figure 4           as this is an architecture journal, please correct the falling lines in the perspective

Section 4.3 is weak You have spent much time setting up the paper to this point. There needs to be a more solid discussion and argument here. And then this needs to be tied back to the literature discussed in the introduction. How does this paper add to this?

Generally: The images state “(source: author).” But there are four authors. So who took the photos?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for the time and effort in reviewing our work and providing such valuable feedback. Please see the pdf document attached for detailed responses. 

Thank you very much. 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The contribution discusses a very relevant topic today concerning the importance of implementing heritage assessment frameworks in post-COVID time with the aim of capture and preserve the identity of urban heritage sites, particularly from a spatial perspective.

I propose to restructure the paper by reversing the order of the second and third paragraphs: first the literature review and then the methodology and case study focus. In particular, the methodology paragraph should explain which instrument or method of analysis was chosen and what the stages of the research were (possibly also supplementing this paragraph with a graphical illustration of the methodology). The case study must be illustrated in a separate paragraph in which it is contextualised geographically and its main features are described, including cultural ones, which are useful to motivate its choice but also serve as a useful data base for the development and testing of the chosen method. For this reason, the introductory part of paragraph 3 does not go in the literature review but goes in the case study paragraph.

On lines 139 and 213 there is a typo for the indication of references.

For the value-based approach please see also the bibliography of Keeney (Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking) and Fusco Girard (The “Intrinsic Value” of Cultural Heritage as Driver for Circular Human-Centered Adaptive Reuse).

The contents of sub-section 3.1.1. do not reflect the title. In fact, the paragraph does not discuss landscape assessment methods but rather gives a brief historical interpretation of the term, specifying the meaning with which it is taken in the present study. If the authors decide to keep this sub-section, it would make sense to merge it with 3.1.2. and present a comprehensive overview of existing urban heritage assessment methods.

Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 are not results for me but are still a description of the case study. As already mentioned, I propose to separate the description of the case study from both the methodology and the results.

The conclusions are too succinct and cannot only report a summary of the results obtained. It is necessary to broaden the discussion by deepening the potential and limitations of the research conducted and also future research perspectives. Furthermore, it would be useful to understand whether and in what way the results obtained contribute to solving the problems presented at the beginning of the paper and whether the experiment represents a replicable model that is also potentially valid in other contexts.

Paragraph 4.4 could be moved to paragraph 5 where discussions and conclusions are integrated.

The major criticism I find in this study is the lack of a methodology.

After analysing the existing literature and explaining what evaluation frameworks are used in Chinatown Melbourne, a test of a method (developed by the authors or even deduced from the literature) should be proposed to prove the ineffectiveness of the existing ones versus an added value brought by your proposal. This can also be done in a predictive way, i.e. by hypothesising what the impacts and benefits of applying your model would be compared to those obtained from applying the existing valuation framework. Your considerations even on existing frameworks cannot be qualitative and based on a narrative. For example, all the statements in lines 458 to 464 are theoretically correct, but what empirical evidence proves this to me? are there, for example, other case studies in China where the application of a different approach led to different outcomes? or are there other cases in the world, comparable to the socio-cultural characteristics of your case study, that prove you right? For example, can you identify and propose criteria by which you evaluate the failure or success of a certain assessment framework that could be adopted instead of those included in the Victorian Heritage Register and that could reflect this systemic vision you rightly propose. From my point of view, the methodology has to be entirely constructed. In the absence of this, the paper lacks a solid scientific structure and seems rather a collection of a series of critical reflections and suggestions.

Furthermore, there is a reference to COVID in the title and introduction that is completely lost in the final considerations. With respect to evaluation methods, is this a discriminating factor? Did it lead to their change and readjustment? The authors are requested to review the coherence of the entire text.

Do not take these remarks of mine the wrong way, but I hope to give you a method for setting up papers that start with the right assumptions but have insignificant outcomes. I hope these suggestions will be a stimulus to enrich and deepen your research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for the time and effort in reviewing our work and providing such valuable feedback. Please see the pdf document attached for detailed responses. 

Thank you very much. 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous review. They have made a substantial effort in the revision, such as adding 5.2 and creating a better framing and literature review

Minor issue

The new/added text seems to use  different referencing system and the references are not included in the reference list

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript again. We have updated the reference list, which should now show all the correct references. Sorry about the inconvenience. 

Thank you.
Regards,

Shiran