Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Line 17: The paper focuses on integrating a "functional mix of culture and industry". The authors should provide a more precise definition of what they mean by "functional mix". What specific types of cultural and industrial activities are being considered? How do these activities interact and support each other in the urban environment?

• Line 44: The paper discusses five co-design workshops . The authors should provide a more detailed description of the co-design process used in these workshops. What specific methods and techniques were employed to facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing among stakeholders? How were conflicting interests and perspectives addressed?

• Line 87: While the paper describes the activities and discussions that took place during the workshops, it could be strengthened by a more thorough assessment of the outcomes and impact of these workshops. What specific actions or decisions resulted from the workshops? How did the workshops influence the attitudes and behaviors of the participants?

• Line 101: The paper focuses on co-design workshops in the Brussels area. The authors should discuss the extent to which the co-design approach used in these workshops can be transferred to other urban contexts. What factors might facilitate or hinder the successful implementation of this approach in other cities?

• Line 229: The paper could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the theoretical framework underpinning the co-design approach. What specific theories of urban planning, design, and governance inform the co-design process? How does the co-design approach relate to other participatory planning and design methods?

• The authors should acknowledge the limitations of the study. For example, what are the potential biases associated with the selection of workshop participants? How might the findings be affected by the specific context of the Brussels area?

• Line 240: The workshops took place in the "Canal District". A more detailed description of the study area, including its history, socio-economic characteristics, and physical features, would provide valuable context for the analysis.

• The paper could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the role of policy and governance in supporting the integration of culture and industry in urban areas. What specific policies and governance structures are needed to create an enabling environment for a functional mix of uses?

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful, detailed, and constructive feedback. Your comments have significantly strengthened the clarity, depth, and relevance of our manuscript. In particular, your insights helped us better articulate key concepts, expand our methodological transparency, and critically reflect on the broader implications of our work. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise the paper in response.

Comment 1:

“Line 17: The paper focuses on integrating a ‘functional mix of culture and industry’. The authors should provide a more precise definition of what they mean by ‘functional mix’. What specific types of cultural and industrial activities are being considered? How do these activities interact and support each other in the urban environment?”

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that further clarity was needed. Therefore, we have revised Section 1.1, paragraph 2, beginning at line 80 (page 3), to provide a specific and expanded definition of “functional mix,” including examples of cultural and industrial activities and their interdependence in the urban environment.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“By ‘functional mix,’ we specifically refer to the deliberate co-location of productive and cultural activities such as artisanal manufacturing, logistics, design workshops, galleries, and event spaces... [continues]”

Comment 2:

“Line 44: The paper discusses five co-design workshops. The authors should provide a more detailed description of the co-design process used in these workshops. What specific methods and techniques were employed to facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing among stakeholders? How were conflicting interests and perspectives addressed?”

Response 2:
Thank you for highlighting this. We have added detail to Section 2 (Methods), page 10, paragraph 2, beginning at line 221, to describe the co-design methodology used in the workshops. This includes participatory mapping, walking interviews, collaborative drawing, and methods for resolving stakeholder conflicts.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“Each workshop followed a co-design methodology combining participatory mapping, walking interviews, rapid prototyping... [continues]”

Comment 3:

“Line 87: While the paper describes the activities and discussions that took place during the workshops, it could be strengthened by a more thorough assessment of the outcomes and impact of these workshops...”

Response 3:
Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree and have expanded Section 3.4 (page 22, paragraph 3) to include a clearer discussion of workshop outcomes and their effects on stakeholder behaviors and local planning decisions. We also cite examples of specific actions taken following the workshops.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“In informal follow-up interviews and field observations conducted in 2023, we documented that participants reported enhanced awareness of alternative development strategies… [continues]”

Comment 4:

“Line 101: The paper focuses on co-design workshops in the Brussels area. The authors should discuss the extent to which the co-design approach used in these workshops can be transferred to other urban contexts…”

Response 4:
Thank you. We have added a paragraph in Section 5.1 (Key takeaways and future directions), page 25, paragraph 2, to reflect on the transferability of the co-design methodology. We outline factors that support or hinder its applicability in other urban settings.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“While this study is situated in Brussels, its methodology and insights are transferable to other urban contexts with similar post-industrial challenges… [continues]”

Comment 5:

“Line 229: The paper could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the theoretical framework underpinning the co-design approach…”

Response 5:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a new opening paragraph to Section 4 (Discussion), page 23, lines 1–12, to elaborate the theoretical basis for the co-design approach, referencing transition management theory, experimental urbanism, and reflective design.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“The co-design process employed is grounded in transition management theory… [continues]”

Comment 6:

“The authors should acknowledge the limitations of the study. For example, what are the potential biases associated with the selection of workshop participants?”

Response 6:
We agree and have added a new subsection titled 5.2 Limitations, on page 26, paragraph 1. This addresses potential biases in participant selection, limited representativeness, and the spatial/contextual specificity of the findings.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“This study acknowledges several limitations. First, workshop participant selection was based largely on existing professional networks… [continues]”

Comment 7:

“Line 240: The workshops took place in the ‘Canal District’. A more detailed description of the study area… would provide valuable context for the analysis.”

Response 7:
Thank you. We agree and have added this context to Section 1.3 (page 8, paragraph 2, line 179), describing the history, socio-economic traits, and spatial conditions of the Canal District.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“The Canal District, where the workshops were situated, is historically a logistics and industrial corridor shaped by 19th-century infrastructure… [continues]”

Comment 8:

“The paper could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the role of policy and governance in supporting the integration of culture and industry in urban areas…”

Response 8:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a paragraph to the end of Section 5.1 (page 25, paragraph 4, line 14), emphasizing the governance and policy structures required to support a functional mix of uses.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“The role of policy and governance is pivotal. Effective support for a functional mix requires zoning regulations… [continues]”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors effectively embed their research within wider planning and policy discourses, grounding their analysis in both solid theoretical frameworks and real-world practice. The integration of direct quotes from interviews with landowners, planners, and policymakers adds depth and credibility, offering valuable insight into how co-design processes influenced stakeholders' thinking. Importantly, the paper addresses the inherent tensions of urban regeneration head-on—particularly the complex relationship between fostering creative clusters and the risk of gentrification. The examples of Workatfirma and Buda BXL vividly illustrate both the positive transformative potential and the unintended side effects related to affordability and social inclusion.

That said, the paper would benefit from a more critical reflection on long-term sustainability. While it clearly articulates the immediate outcomes of the workshops, it is less clear how these ideas have been sustained or embedded into ongoing policy and development frameworks. Furthermore, the perspectives of local residents and grassroots cultural practitioners could be more fully represented, as their voices are essential to understanding the social impact of mixed-use redevelopment.

Overall, this is a well-constructed and thought-provoking study that offers meaningful contributions to the fields of design-led urban planning and participatory governance. Its practical relevance and nuanced analysis make it a compelling read for both researchers and practitioners.

Author Response

Comment 1:

“The paper would benefit from a more critical reflection on long-term sustainability. While it clearly articulates the immediate outcomes of the workshops, it is less clear how these ideas have been sustained or embedded into ongoing policy and development frameworks.”

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph at the end of Section 4 (page 23, paragraph 6, line 25) which reflects critically on the gap between experimental processes and institutional uptake. This new section discusses how some ideas from the workshops have sparked cross-border collaboration but have not yet been systematically embedded in policy frameworks, and calls for improved mechanisms to translate co-design insights into lasting regulatory or planning strategies.

[Updated text in the manuscript:]

“While the workshops clearly inspired immediate interventions, such as the development of Buda BXL and the launch of mixed-use spaces like Workatfirma, the longer-term embedding of workshop-derived ideas into formal policy frameworks remains uneven… [continues]”

Comment 2:

“Furthermore, the perspectives of local residents and grassroots cultural practitioners could be more fully represented, as their voices are essential to understanding the social impact of mixed-use redevelopment.”

Response 2:
Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree and acknowledge this limitation. Unfortunately, local residents and grassroots cultural practitioners were not included in the workshops or interviews. Therefore, we have addressed this in the revised manuscript in two places:

• In the Limitations section (Section 5.2, page 26, paragraph 1, line 10), we explicitly state that the participant cohort primarily consisted of institutional stakeholders, which limits the study’s ability to capture grassroots perspectives.

• In the Future Research section (Section 5.1, page 25, paragraph 5, line 16), we added a recommendation for future research to include residents, local artists, and cultural practitioners, as their inclusion would better reveal the social impact of redevelopment on affected communities.

[Updated text in the manuscript – Limitations section:]

“...the stakeholder cohort primarily comprised landowners, policymakers, and design professionals, meaning the voices of local residents and grassroots cultural practitioners were underrepresented.”

[Updated text in the manuscript – Future Research section:]

“Future research should also address the perspectives of grassroots actors—including residents, local artists, and small-scale cultural practitioners—to better understand the social consequences of redevelopment strategies.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-figs need to revise as more legible, please.

 

Author Response

Please find attached the version with better figures.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf