On Island Time, in Built Space

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting read - grounded in a very specific place, but contextualized by a range of well-known authors/designers. I would be curious to learn more about how the author integrates this position into their teaching. I hope there is a connection. The discussion of the Manoa Valley District Park, for example, from the perspective of the author's dog would make a fascinating design prompt.  

Author Response

I agree with this suggestion. More pedagogical content is added, along with more direct arguments made in relationship to my teaching.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the topic listed in the title is relevant, the overall structure of the text reads as a succession of interesting but loosely connected points and the overall coherence is difficult to follow. The relationship of geometry and perception with the built space or its division (in paradise or not) or the correspondence of times (tourist time, military time, dog time, turtle time, island time) are not consistently related and key aspects like false binaries, such as island time or clock time, are lightly developed.

The academic structure is weak in some aspects: the abstract does not summarize the main objective, structure and contribution of the text, the narrative is not supported by a solid refetence to the state of the art and conclusions are not firmly supported by the discourse.

It is suggested to strengthen this aspects. 

Author Response

I agree with the reviewer and have made significant efforts to improving the academic legibility of the paper. See revised submission. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very insightful and well written essay that engages a topic that is essential to design. The abstract could be improved upon by synthesizing in it the storytelling arc and structure of the paper. As it stands, it reads as a synthesis of the lit review or background intro rather than a condensed version of the essay's content.

 

While the contribution of this paper to design thinking is clear, the paper could be more pedagogical, and draw stronger and clearer conclusions. Upon reading it, I was left with a desire to hear from the author about some practical lessons for design, which would be warranted for any paper in an Architectural journal. Given what the author calls the perceptual and highly personal way of experiencing time, knowing more about how others might benefit from hearing these stories, and why they matter, would help.

 

Also unclear is the method. The journal-like quality of the writing. While we do not necessarily need to make all of our work accountable to research methodology, there could be a more specific and pointed discussion about how thinking about island time could benefit all designers, including those of us who may not experience it with the same depth.

 

The time of the classroom of ARCH652 is also only hinted at, while it seems to have led to many learnings. In what way does the discrete and Chronos-like time of the architectural curriculum differ, contrast, or complement the Kairos of nature? In what way did the class inform these reflections, if any?

 

It would also be useful to consistently use citations, quotes, Italics to indicate non-english text etc. The layered nature of the text might warrant a more rigorous way to treat the various ‘voices’ and threads. I would also suggest adding page numbers to the in-text citations for every direct quote. Perhaps adding dates and time of day/seasonal time to the pictures would also help, especially given that seasons are perceived and affect experiences differently in Hawaii than in the Northern Hemisphere. Finally, may the author consider adding topographical maps of the places depicted in the text? Topographical maps imply time, especially when they support human experience and travel. They would be a useful addition to this already insightful piece.

 

All in all, it was a pleasure to read this essay!

Author Response

I agree, and have since incorporated more examples of how this temporal perspective is a part of my teaching. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is an interesting rumination on various concepts of time. The ideas wander enjoyably from "dog time" to "turtle time" to "dam time" and so on. The content touches on a broad range of ideas, including the geometry of space perception, a student project, concepts of "paradise," the author's upcoming sabbatical, and the possibility of new ecological relationships. There is a very intriguing concept embedded within this wandering and touching upon diverse subjects, but it is not fully formulated in the article, and some important elements are underdeveloped or missing. For example, "island time" is not defined, and native Hawaiian concepts of time are not discussed - both seem important given the author's self-stated location in Honolulu. 

The abstract suggests that the article will address "how time is experienced in built space" and offer ideas for design education. However, the application to the built environment, particularly for educators looking to embed these ideas into courses or curricula, remains elusive. With greater attention to bringing the ideas into a coherent conclusion, the article will achieve its own optimism (beyond Lynch and van der Rohe) and add to the body of theory on time and built space. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the quality of the English is quite good. There are some issues with commas that could be corrected for greater clarity. 

Author Response

agree, key terms have all been properly defined. 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting essay. More reflective than critical, but I am okay with that. Would be better if you clearly identified and explained your critical stance at the beginning before gradually rolling in out over the entire length of the essay. It almost reads like you developed the argument while writing it; now go back and edit for clarity of thought.

The most significant fault I see with this essay is any reference to the established literature on theories of time-space perception in architecture. Granted landscape is different from architecture, the human experience of space and time likely has communal basis in both instances. You at least need to address previous literature first, even if you then go on to disagree with it. Juhani Pallasmaa comes to mind.

Text needs to be copyedited. For example: "According to the editors" on line 73 is not a complete sentence; line 75 awkwardly starting a new sentence might have been intended to continue the previous; the sentence starting on line 84 doesn't technically identify its subject; "Nearly a quarter of the state's entire population" on line 91 is not a complete sentence; "understand" and "perceiving" on line 178 are not matching verb tenses; titles should be italicized throughout.

Citations need to be thoroughly checked and cross-referenced  for accuracy. Zheng et.al, 2022 cited on page 1, line 43 does not exist in reference list (but Zhang et.al. 2023 does). Nature, 2022 cited on page 2 line 63 is not in the reference list. Lynch is not actually cited in paragraph beginning line 204 where he is introduced. There are other instances. 

Neural networks referenced on page 2, line 55 might need to be introduced; I'm not sure most people attracted to this essay based on content will know what they are. Having said that, a deeper dive on how neural networks function in NeRF models parallel how the human mind might theoretically work could be interesting (to think about for the future). 

Could use references for quantifications stated in paragraphs at bottom of page 2 to top of page 3. I also feel that discussion of the first 2/3's of Hawaiian Land could be adequately covered in 2-3 sentences, not 2 paragraphs. The rest is sensationalizing and does not contribute to the criticality of your paper.

Dog Time needs references. Not necessarily critical scientific references, but something to connect what you are saying to previous thinking on the topic. There has to be some out there. At the very least, paragraph beginning on line 188 does not include a reference to the material quoted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine. Punctuation and grammar needs improving.

Author Response

Fully agree with this outstanding reviewer. I'm also extremely grateful for their time and comments. All noted errors in citation have been corrected. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper contains a major review of the abstract, which now states clearly the aim, “the relationship between spatial perception and temporal experience”, and list the three assertions reasoned. Additionally, new paragraphs have been added to complete some key aspects of the previous version, significantly in the section approaching “learning speed for Tropical Climates”.

However, the main task stated in the abstract is still unclear. The concept “Spatial perception” is found in the abstract and approached in lines 68, 79, 94, 98, 105, 284, 500, but its relationship to temporal experience is yet ambiguous (i.e.: It is stated that spatial distinctions define differences in individual time experience, but it is not explained how or why).

To make this clear, it is suggested to approach in depth the relationship between spatial perception and temporal experience in a section. And following this, the consideration of experience times (Island time, Hawaiian time, Dog time, Turtle time, Tourist Time, Military time), other than the mechanical clock time, and the specific relationship of spatial perception and time experience in them.

Or the opposite, listing these times from their specific linkage of space perception and time experience and following with an analysis of this linkage.

Perhaps, the most significant outcome of this paper is the personal approach to Time In Built Spaces made in section “Optimal [learning] Speed for Tropical Climates”. But, again, different concepts merge and follow without a clear narrative. Thus, it is suggested to describe these outcomes in a section other than the one of the last three paragraphs and explain them in an interrelated analysis.

The paper shows a significant improving, but further correction is recommended to meet the aim stated achieving a comprehensive reading.

Some parts of the text are still found in a confusing section (i.e.: Lynch approach seems to fit better in the introduction than in dog time).

Some parts of the text are written with little care (i.e.: repetition of the same sentences in lines 50-53 and 60-63 or the allusion “to satisfy the reviewers of this paper” in line 114).

Some references are listed out of the sentence.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out several suggestions for improvement. Particularly in the first round. Your newer comments indicate that the revision contains notable improvement. The comments begin,  "The paper contains a major review of the abstract, which now states clearly the aim, “the relationship between spatial perception and temporal experience”, and list the three assertions reasoned. Additionally, new paragraphs have been added to complete some key aspects of the previous version, significantly in the section approaching “learning speed for Tropical Climates”.

Then, the second round review notes the ambiguity in the writing, which I would argue follows the difficulty in perceiving temporal/spatial relationships, in general. You state, "However, the main task stated in the abstract is still unclear. The concept “Spatial perception” is found in the abstract and approached in lines 68, 79, 94, 98, 105, 284, 500, but its relationship to temporal experience is yet ambiguous (i.e.: It is stated that spatial distinctions define differences in individual time experience, but it is not explained how or why)."

I'm okay with some degree of ambiguity here, in fact it's deliberate. The reader can parse through and make their own way to varying answers and clues about their own perceptions. I'd prefer not to spell this out as if it's a scientific paper or similar. There isn't a formula I'm arguing for here. This is an opinion essay, which I wrote and have worked hard to edit for this specific journal issue. I have made no plans to publish it elsewhere and would like this resolved. 

The second round notes go on to say, helpfully, "To make this clear, it is suggested to approach in depth the relationship between spatial perception and temporal experience in a section. And following this, the consideration of experience times (Island time, Hawaiian time, Dog time, Turtle time, Tourist Time, Military time), other than the mechanical clock time, and the specific relationship of spatial perception and time experience in them.

Thank you. But very respectfully, the other 4 reviewers all had glowing comments in the first round. No significant notes. Many found the read enjoyable and insightful. Your review was thoughtful and clear, with much constructive input. And I have thought long and worked diligently over several months to revise the paper to address all your initial comments.

At this time I do not feel it necessary to write a whole new section or to edit the paper's contents such that this new suggested sequence is outlined. Particularly as the other reviews have all indicated enthusiastic approval, as written.  In my experience editing journals and conferences for the last 20 years or so, I would tend to average the approvals and rejections. Your comments have been helpful, but they are a statistical outlier. I'm grateful for the suggestions, particularly the addition of Pallassma and others' interpretation regrading the paper's foundations. This made the paper stronger for sure, but I hope you'll appreciate that it's time to move on. Thank you.