Between Water and Land: An Urban and Architectural Response to Climate Change in Red Hook, Brooklyn

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: architecture-3672381

Type of manuscript: Article

 

Title:  Between Water and Land: An Urban and Architectural Response to Climate Change

 

Reviewer comments:

1. The author is advised to follow the writing guidelines provided by the journal. Accuracy in the overall writing, particularly in structure, references, and language style, needs to be improved. In addition, since the article heavily relies on the Red Hook case study to develop its architectural and urban resilience arguments, it is recommended that the case study be explicitly mentioned in the title to better reflect the article's scope and empirical grounding.
2. The abstract raises important issues related to urban resilience in the context of climate change, but it is still weak in substance. The length of the abstract is only about 100 words, below the general standards of journals (150–200 words). In addition, there is no explicit explanation of the research objectives, methods used, main results, and scientific contributions. Abstract structures do not represent the logical flow of a scientific study. The use of nine keywords was judged excessive, and some had conceptual overlap, thus obscuring the main focus of the study.
3. The introduction illustrates the urgency of the issue of climate change and presents a local context (Red Hook), but does not explicitly explain how this case study contributes to the development of urban resilience theory or practice at the global level. An emphasis on the value of generalizations or theoretical contributions is indispensable for articles to have competitiveness in international scientific forums.
4. Although the article presents a wealth of empirical data and contextual narratives, there has not been a clear integration of theoretical frameworks in analyzing coastal risk and urban resilience. An article will be stronger if the argument is based on a relevant and tested theoretical approach or conceptual model.
5. The "Materials and Methods" section does not systematically explain the methodology. The author explains more about the reasons for choosing the study location and the historical-sociological background of Red Hook, without explaining in detail the data collection techniques (e.g., observations, interviews, policy analysis) or analysis methods used. This absence weakens scientific validity and inhibits the replication of studies by other researchers.
6. Exposure to too many results contains summaries of government policy and program documents without clarification of whether the information is the result of field findings or is simply adapted from public sources. It is necessary to explicitly distinguish between which is secondary data and which is the author's original contribution.
7. The authors state that architectural interventions such as the Red Hook Library and Red Hook Houses increase the resilience of the community. However, these claims have not been supported by empirical data showing real impacts, such as changes in social engagement levels, access to services, or disaster preparedness. Visual and descriptive narratives need to be strengthened with credible quantitative or qualitative data.
8. The concept of "Resilient Regrowth" proposed is still conceptual and visual. To enhance scientific contributions, the authors need to propose evaluation indicators, measurement approaches, or longitudinal study methodologies that allow testing of the effectiveness of these concepts in the long term in coastal areas such as Red Hook.
9. Some of the main arguments, especially related to adaptive reuse and embodied carbon, are largely based on student works that are exploratory and speculative. The validity and generalization of the findings are questionable, given that they have not been tested on a real implementation scale.
10. The article mentions urban mining as a potential strategy for resilience and sustainability, but does not address the technical and economic barriers that may arise, such as supporting infrastructure, existing regulations, or local labor capacity. A more in-depth study is needed for this strategy to be considered realistic.
11. The implementation of nature-based solutions such as phytoremediation and kelp farming in high-polluted areas such as Red Hook needs to be studied more critically. The authors have not discussed how the risk of industrial contamination and the impact on environmental health are handled technically and scientifically in its design and implementation.
12. Design for disassembly (DfD) strategies are presented as an excellent approach, but challenges such as high upfront costs, workforce training needs, and policy incentives are not adequately addressed. To strengthen the applicative contribution, the article needs to examine the conditions that allow the adoption of this strategy in the field.
13. The conclusion of the article presents three scales of resilience (individual, building, city), but does not explain how the integration of these three can be realized in urban policy and planning practice. To be normative, the author needs to show a concrete mechanism to implement the Regrowth approach in a measurable and applicable manner.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript.  There are some specific recommendations that we are happy to incorporate in our edit.  These are described below.  First, however, it may be helpful to offer an overall response to your peer review that may better contextualize our reply.

Your feedback is offered through the lens of scientific journal writing.  While an obviously valid perspective, this lens does not consider other disciplinary forms of critical and propositional analysis that are common in architectural journal writing and climate change policy analysis.  This article combines two forms of analysis that are common in climate literature.  The first is the “assessment report.”   Two of the authors of the manuscript were recent authors of the New York City Panel on Climate Change’s (NPCC) 4^th Assessment Report.  President Towers co-chaired the panel.  The report is the definitive document responsible for the projections of record on all manner of climate impacts, SLR, heat, precipitation, etc. that are used to determine the science-based policy decisions of NYC.  The NPCC is often described as the IPCC of New York.  The bio-physical scientific basis for much of the article is prefaced on data that are drawn from NPCC and IPCC.  The manuscript then critically analyzes Red Hook, Brooklyn in relation to the relevant climate science and proposes alternative urban planning and architectural responses to what has transpired.  This is the second form of journal writing, drawn from the architectural discipline, to propose possible alternative scenarios.  This is also consistent with IPCC SSP frameworks.  Not only do we believe that this framework is legitimate to respond to the special journal prompt to explore “architectural responses to climate change” we think it represents a valuable contribution to the field.  At this scale of work it is particularly difficult to set up controlled field experiments that can be analyzed through traditional scientific methods.  This is simply not how cities have evolved.  For better or worse, there is an aspect of propositional commitment that can only be evaluated after the fact.  As the approach presented in this paper suggests a new, multiscalar integrated framework (regrowth) in contraposition to the insufficient approach of existing architectural practice or municipal strategy, the most this paper can do is describe the potential benefits we believe will accrue for Red Hook and other, similarly at risk landscapes in cities around the world.

That said, we have incorporated your suggestion that "Red Hook" appear in the article tile.  And we have edited the abstract for clarity while also including a direct thesis statement.  It now stands at 161 words.  There has been an overarching editorial direction to tighten the writing and so this feels like a reasonable balance between your suggested length and the need for crisp, comprehensible writing.

The conclusion of the paper addresses the generalized urban resilience theory that you raise in point 3.  We read your feedback to be a question more about how this generalized theory can be realized in planning or professional practice, rather than a critique of the theory itself.  The answer, which again seems to emerge from critical architectural theory rather than scientific journal writing is that the design and visualization of regrowth strategies is one of the critical contributions of architectural practice to climate change.  Mayor Bloomberg, of NYC, routinely said, “if you can’t measure a problem, you can’t fix it.”  Our corollary is that “if you can’t imagine a future, you can’t build it.”  Ultimately this paper seeks to inspire the field of architecture to direct its propositional and imaginative capacities to the challenge of coastal urban environments in the age of climate change.

Nature based solutions (NBS) and Design for Disassembly are adequately researched elsewhere and we reference that literature in our citations.  Again, this is in the spirit of an assessment report.  Similarly with urban mining.  While all three of these are relatively recent methodologies with NBS having the deepest literature, the references we have included speak to their legitimacy and their drawbacks.  The latter are largely a result of the continuation of business-as-usual, risk-averse, practices in the building trades and real estate development industries.  These are relevant concerns but not central to the thesis of the article. 

Finally, we disagree that the inclusion of speculative, student-generated proposals makes the viability or generalization of the findings questionable. There is a long history in architectural practice of innovation emerging through student-generated proposals precisely because they are not constrained by the client-driven model of the field.  These works present a possible future and resilient urban landscape, and they are the first visualizations of it.  Practitioners can now take this work forward within the more constrained nature of professional practice.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Using Red Hook/Brooklyn, as a case study offers a fascinating and timely investigation of coastal resilience seen via architecture and urbanism. Urban policy, design interventions, and climate justice issues are perfectly intertwined to in the paper. Nevertheless, the article would gain from more conceptual clarity and more critical interaction with current research. A list of particular, line-referenced recommendations to improve clarity, coherence, and academic contribution follows: 

Lines 7–15: The abstract presents impotant themes; however, it fails to convey a clear research question or purpose. It is suggested to state the purpose and contribution of the study clearly.

Line 12: "Urban mining" and "nature-based solutions" are phrases that are introduced without definition. Recommend briefly defining them in order to clarify for the abstract.

Lines 22–48: The issue is presented, but there is no clear statement of the research question or hypothesis. Suggest stating a clear research objective early in the section (line 33).

Line 30: The claim that Red Hook is "projected to remain vulnerable" requires an in-text citation. 

Lines 44: The treatment of "heterogeneous resilience" is  overly abstract. Recommend grounding it in an example or defining it more precisely.

Lines 50–56: The link between coastal hazard and environmental injustice is strong. Recommend referencing recent climatic justice publications to enhance this argument. Such as : Jurjonas, M., & Seekamp, E. (2020). ‘A commons before the sea:’climate justice considerations for coastal zone management. Climate and development, 12(3), 199-203./// Ruan, X., Sun, H., Shou, W., & Wang, J. (2024). The impact of climate change and urbanization on compound flood risks in coastal areas: a comprehensive review of methods. Applied Sciences, 14(21), 10019.

Lines 92-104: The justification for the selection of Red Hook is methodologically opaque. Suggest the inclusion of a sentence on the analytic approach (e.g., case study, comparative analysis, etc.).

Line 133: "Minimal support in the first days" must be supported, and recommend clarifying source or mechanism of delayed aid response.

Lines 134–138: authors ought to think how prolonged delay impacts/strengthen social resilience

Line 144: The term "architectural resiliency efforts" is ambiguous. Suggest clarifying the term “architectural resiliency efforts”. Do you mean these are pertain to physical improvement of buildings?.

Lines 155:  Recommend adding one or two CRDG limitations or contrasting it with examples from around the globe.

Lines 188–192:  Recommend elaborating Local networks of trust into a subsection.

Lines 207–209: Describing what specific guidelines or standards were followed in the resiliency approaches used at the Red Hook Library .

Lines 225–229: Framing raising the roof as a measure of resilience. Suggest making the connection between architectural necessity and civic benefit more obvious.


Line 281: It would be better to explain how aesthetic cultural marker influences public perception.

Line 316: Suggest earlier definition of liminal coastline and add it within the keywords.

Lines 355–358: Recommend incorporating citations on zoning reform or adaptive urbanism.

Line 382: ouch building ?!!

Section 4.3: The concept embodied carbon" must be supported by building performance.

Line 433: Material passports of Madaster are relevant. Suggest providing recommendations on how NYC can implement a similar cataloging strategy.

Line 576: clarify the term "Non-mixed materials" as a footnote. 

Line 617–620: The Berman reference is poetic. Attempt to articulate its relevance to the architectural discussion more directly. 

Line 631–653: Add a conceptual diagram to depict the interrelation of human-building-city.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need minor improvement. 

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review of this article. Your notes have been addressed and are highlighted in the revised manuscript in blue. Several new sources have been added, as well as line edits to improve the clarity of the research question and several concepts introduced in the paper. Please note that the line numbers have shifted due to these and other edits to the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 60 - mold or contamination in buildings leading to…

Line 61 - continual care that requires electricity while limiting…

Line 64 - and separated systems when flood waters inundate gully traps associated with wastewater systems

Line 70 - often interlinked with other urban…

Line 72 - to extend to other systems

Line 77 – define SLR

Line 78 - which is surprising given

Line 87 - What is PNA?

Line 167 – Reference required

Line 168 – Reference required

Line 172 - Will the flood plain designations remain the same or will there be new designations so that some existing 100 year flood plains will in future be in 500 year flood plains, for instance?

Line 178 - Reference needed for HATS study?

Line 195 - What is KPF?

Line 226 - foundation slab - do you mean 8" thick concrete floor slab?

Line 242 - Is SCARF the designer/constructor of the outside landscaping?

Line 243 - flood resilience properties

Line 252 - What do you mean by "dynamic" masonry?

Line 278 - how are the power stations fueled?

Lines 377-379 - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.

Line 385 - Lorde throughout its lifetime. Delete "and"

Line 390 - water and coastal

Line 418 - materials with embodied carbon

Line 433 - a digital platform?

Line 474 - Green City Force?

Line 492 - "superfund" may need explanation for an international audience.

Line 528 - What about harmful toxin residues in the kelp that is produced?

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review of this article. Your notes have been addressed and are highlighted in the revised manuscript in red. Please note that the line numbers have shifted due to these and other edits to the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a solid, well-conducted study with notable conceptual contributions. Congratulations!

Author Response

Thank you!