Exploration of Intelligent Building Planning for Urban Renewal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Authors,
The manuscript presents a quite interesting study, but for me some aspects must be improved:
- In the first part must be well defined the aim of the research and hypothesis
- Which are your proposals to reduce the identified limitations of the study and the proposals for the future starting from the results obtained?
Author Response
In the first part must be well defined the aim of the research and hypothesis
Response：We thank you for the comment. We have added the following description in lines (147–149).
‘The aim of this study was to use generative design to realise intelligent planning for urban villages, provide technical support for urban village redevelopment, and assist in the implementation of the plans’.
- Which are your proposals to reduce the identified limitations of the study and the proposals for the future starting from the results obtained?
Response: We have highlighted the limitations of the study in lines 495–503. Further proposals have been added in lines 544–553.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors should justify the choice of Changban Village for the study.
Generally, the paper is good.
The authors should make reference to this framework (figure 2) in the text. They should also explain it as well.
Line 191: authors should delete the 1
Figure 3: WILLING under EXECUTORS should be deleted.
Methods: from reading this section, the authors were able to explain the approach used in the data analysis. This is good but they should also do the following:
They should discuss in detail the type of data used, methods of data collection, and sampling procedures used.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer2
The authors should justify the choice of Changban Village for the study.
Generally, the paper is good.
Response: We thank you for the comment. We have added the necessary information in the section 2.1.
The authors should make reference to this framework (figure 2) in the text. They should also explain it as well.
Response: We thank you for the comment. We have added reference to figure2 and the necessary information in revised manuscript.
Line 191: authors should delete the 1
Response: We thank you for the comment. We checked and deleted 1 in revised manuscript.
Figure 3: WILLING under EXECUTORS should be deleted.
Response: We thank you for the comment. We have revised the figure3.
Methods: from reading this section, the authors were able to explain the approach used in the data analysis. This is good but they should also do the following:
They should discuss in detail the type of data used, methods of data collection, and sampling procedures used.
Response: We thank you for the comment. We have added the necessary information in the section 2.1 and 2.3.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear authors,
Thank you for your effort to connect participation with design and planning of building areas using a simulation technique. You start off with a reasonable overview on the options of participation, especially from a Chinese perspective, and using several sources, including ‘good-old’ Arnstein with ‘her’ famous ladder (in line 186 you used ‘his’ by mistake (?)). You also stressed the unique Chinese phenomenon of urban villages and their impact on city growth, which makes it even more interesting. However, it is a pity you are not consistent with this urban village level and terminology throughout your paper, sometimes the term pops up, sometimes it is about urban development, and sometimes it is rural. This is really confusing, because this specific level matters; try to be consistent with this. Also the way and the level of participation plays a role and is linked to this urban village. You present it often as ‘their need’, but it is never made tangible what this entails and how inhabitants could or should participate and how this influences the design and planning process.
After this introduction, I was expecting something that would be dealing with different participation levels and options, the input and needs from residents, and their way of designing and understanding planning parameters. But from section 1.3 onwards the process is very simplified towards only a more technical and quantitative issue, that could be dealt with in a strict calculating manner. No creativity (to me an essential part in design) or participating roles are included at all in your approach, just some straight forward calculations. It seems to me to be essential for an intelligent development, to know what this need is about and how this need can be transformed towards usable parameters. And how about the social aspects of an urban village? It is now only about some distances between more or less identical objects, is there no variation in buildings and environments allowed? No influence of for instance water, green, soil, differences between people that creates alternatives? I see it now as a very first exploratory step, but it needs much more to characterize it as an instrument for ‘intelligent building planning for urban renewal’. It needs to include many other aspects that are also important in an ‘urban village’ redevelopment process, where people live and socialize, using the green and water, enjoying the other people and environment, and that for sure include what their needs and wishes are. Now the result is presented as a sort of industrial living environment, having blocks with all the same sizes and structures, and no activities and environmental links involved. The analysis performed is sound, using different situations and comparing results. But then again when an almost identical set-up is used there will be no big differences encountered.
The title and section 2.2 also suggest a Multi Criteria Analysis, although Analysis is not used at all. There are a few criteria applied (in table 2 there are 6, in the other tables 5), and you can typify this as Multi, but in academic papers there should be much more criteria involved. Please skip this from the title and from section 2.2.
What happened to the ‘Green area ratio’ in table 2 and in the supporting describing text? It would have been an intriguing and complicating criterion in the design and planning process, but it does not play a role whatsoever in the analysis. It just disappears. Also ‘Building density’ is used twice in table 2, which seems not correct.
To conclude, I was triggered by the title and a bit by the abstract, but was very disappointed in the coherence between the first 2 sections (1.1 and 1.2) and the rest of the paper. There was hardly any link between these parts, except for the use of a few common words. Either this coherence has to be thoroughly strengthened in the simulation part or the introduction has to be altered in a much more simplified way, without any pretention of participation, to be a more coherent paper.
Author Response
Reviewer3
Thank you for your effort to connect participation with design and planning of building areas using a simulation technique. You start off with a reasonable overview on the options of participation, especially from a Chinese perspective, and using several sources, including ‘good-old’ Arnstein with ‘her’ famous ladder (in line 186 you used ‘his’ by mistake (?)).
Response: We thank you for the comment and apologise for the oversight. We have fixed it in line 168 in revised manuscript.
You also stressed the unique Chinese phenomenon of urban villages and their impact on city growth, which makes it even more interesting. However, it is a pity you are not consistent with this urban village level and terminology throughout your paper, sometimes the term pops up, sometimes it is about urban development, and sometimes it is rural. This is really confusing, because this specific level matters; try to be consistent with this.
Response: We thank you for the comment. We have made the necessary revisions from line 28 to 31 in the manuscript.
Also the way and the level of participation plays a role and is linked to this urban village. You present it often as ‘their need’, but it is never made tangible what this entails and how inhabitants could or should participate and how this influences the design and planning process.
Response: After China entered the post-urbanization era, villagers' awareness of their rights has awakened. During the renewal process of urban villages, they gradually move from rights confirmation and rights negotiation to deep participation in the renewal schema. Villagers can give feedback on the renewal schema and express their ideas. However, the feedback through the public design drawings seems less intuitive. So this study can help them interact the intelligent design schema.
After this introduction, I was expecting something that would be dealing with different participation levels and options, the input and needs from residents, and their way of designing and understanding planning parameters. But from section 1.3 onwards the process is very simplified towards only a more technical and quantitative issue, that could be dealt with in a strict calculating manner. No creativity (to me an essential part in design) or participating roles are included at all in your approach, just some straight forward calculations. It seems to me to be essential for an intelligent development, to know what this need is about and how this need can be transformed towards usable parameters. And how about the social aspects of an urban village? It is now only about some distances between more or less identical objects, is there no variation in buildings and environments allowed? No influence of for instance water, green, soil, differences between people that creates alternatives? I see it now as a very first exploratory step, but it needs much more to characterise it as an instrument for ‘intelligent building planning for urban renewal’. It needs to include many other aspects that are also important in an ‘urban village’ redevelopment process, where people live and socialise, using the green and water, enjoying the other people and environment, and that for sure include what their needs and wishes are. Now the result is presented as a sort of industrial living environment, having blocks with all the same sizes and structures, and no activities and environmental links involved. The analysis performed is sound, using different situations and comparing results. But then again when an almost identical set-up is used there will be no big differences encountered.
Response: We thank you for your suggestions. Admittedly, there are many factors that need to be considered in planning and design, such as green space and water. In this study, we aimed to build a general framework for intelligent planning of urban village renewal and provide processes and ideas to realise intelligent planning of urban village renewal. However, owing to the limitation of the length of the article, only simple engineering indicators such as building spacing were selected as factors to verify the intelligent design framework, which also makes the final form of the results generated in this study relatively simple. This is a limitation of this study. Therefore, your suggestions will be the focus of our future research. This information has been described in the Discussion.
The title and section 2.2 also suggest a Multi Criteria Analysis, although Analysis is not used at all. There are a few criteria applied (in table 2 there are 6, in the other tables 5), and you can typify this as Multi, but in academic papers there should be much more criteria involved. Please skip this from the title and from section 2.2.
What happened to the ‘Green area ratio’ in table 2 and in the supporting describing text? It would have been an intriguing and complicating criterion in the design and planning process, but it does not play a role whatsoever in the analysis. It just disappears.
Response: We assumed that all areas within the site, except for buildings, are green areas, and therefore, no relevant description has been added. The hypothesis has been added in the manuscript.
Also ‘Building density’ is used twice in table 2, which seems not correct.
Response: We thank you for the comment. We have revised it in the new manuscript.
To conclude, I was triggered by the title and a bit by the abstract, but was very disappointed in the coherence between the first 2 sections (1.1 and 1.2) and the rest of the paper. There was hardly any link between these parts, except for the use of a few common words. Either this coherence has to be thoroughly strengthened in the simulation part or the introduction has to be altered in a much more simplified way, without any pretention of participation, to be a more coherent paper.
Response: Thank you for your professional comment. Indeed, the first two sections (1.1 and 1.2) are less closely linked to the rest of the paper. The purpose of this study was to build a general framework for intelligent planning of urban village renewal and to provide processes and ideas for realising intelligent planning of urban village renewal. Therefore, we streamlined introductory section and moved the Intelligent Design Framework to the section 2.3 in revised manuscript. We tried to strengthen the link between public participation process and intelligent planning in urban village renewal.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
A good job has been done. I believe that the outputs of the approach proposed by the authors are still uncertain. Many crucial factors in the urban regeneration project are not yet clarified. Factors on which the success or failure of an urban intervention is based. However, the topic is very interesting and original.
Author Response
A good job has been done. I believe that the outputs of the approach proposed by the authors are still uncertain. Many crucial factors in the urban regeneration project are not yet clarified. Factors on which the success or failure of an urban intervention is based. However, the topic is very interesting and original.
Response: We thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have highlighted the outputs of the approach proposed. This method for renewal planning and design can quickly generate a variety of building layout plans using some criteria and requirement for participation. The crucial factors in urban regeneration projects are indicators listed in multi-criteria constraint system.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear authors,
Thank you for this updated version of your paper. Several adjustments were made as suggested and overall it has improved. But still I have great concern about the balance and coherence in the paper itself. Section 1.1 and 1.2 are very specific about participation, but the rest of the paper is about the model in which hardly any link is made with the first two sections. Participation and the need and perspectives of villagers (as described e.g. in lines 148-159 or 173 or lines 198/199 or 220) sometimes pops up in the analysis description, but it is not made clear at all how these are integrated in the model, or even integrated at all. Moving section 1.3 to 2.3 is not enough. Also, in the discussion and concluding section hardly anything is expressed about the role and impact of villagers and how their role could or should be applied and integrated. Furthermore, it is a nice addition (in line 549/550) that the role of a government should also be included, but it stays a very open statement, without any suggestion how this could be applied or what possible consequences could be for the model.
Next to this general, yet important, observation, I have a few more detailed questions, suggestions and remarks.
- In the title as well as section 2.4 you mention Multi-criteria. You haven’t addressed that point from my previous review. It still seems very strange to mention this, as there are always a few criteria at stack, so it is always ‘Multi’. It suggests so much more which isn’t taken care of in the paper itself. Please rephrased this.
- Figure 1 is a large and complex interesting scheme, but how is it linked to the model. Which parts are translated or used and why? Make this more explicit, also to stress coherence
- Can you explain how the extensive and complex figure 2 can be linked to figure 1, and what is applied in the analysis. There is much details offered, but it seems hardly anything being used.
- What are the green blocks or several dotted (coloured) blocks stands for in figure 2 and what do you want to express with the numbers in between []? You have to explain that also in the caption or in a legend with the figure.
- In Table 2 Shenzhen is used several times, while it is not in table 1 anymore. It was in the previous version. Please, stay consistent.
- In figure 4 you have he opportunity to demonstrate how the participation and perspectives and needs of villagers is integrated in the model. This is now very hidden, I could not really discover it. Furthermore, you have to explain the green blocks.
- In line 367 you have added the assumption about green. But it still stays very vague and general. And you don’t address its impact, composition and meaning for the model.
- In section 3.1 also a discussion is offered (at least in the title). How does participation as described in section 1/1/1.2 played in role in this analysis.
- Inn line 480/481 you present a very limited interpretation of the ‘needs’ of villagers, only translated into number of houses and distance. Where is the link with figure 1 and 2?
- Line 488 about the desire to improve seems broad, but the actual focus in the model is very limited.
- Lines 490-492 are not addressed in the model at all (at least not that I could trace it), so why mention it here as such an obvious impact of the model?
Overall, I would like you to really work on the coherence between the more general background presented in sections 1.1 and 1.2 and how this is reflected in your model, what is taken care of, and what could or should be improved in follow-up studies.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, We thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith. Thank you from my heart! Round2 Comments Thank you for this updated version of your paper. Several adjustments were made as suggested and overall it has improved. But still I have great concern about the balance and coherence in the paper itself. Section 1.1 and 1.2 are very specific about participation, but the rest of the paper is about the model in which hardly any link is made with the first two sections. Participation and the need and perspectives of villagers (as described e.g. in lines 148-159 or 173 or lines 198/199 or 220) sometimes pops up in the analysis description, but it is not made clear at all how these are integrated in the model, or even integrated at all. Moving section 1.3 to 2.3 is not enough. Response: Thank you for these pertinent comments. The introduction section has been simplified, and some sections have been merged into Section 2.1. Section 2.1 proposes an urban renewal framework for intelligent planning with a proposed multi-party collaborative pattern in the new manuscript. This framework closely integrates the urban renewal process, public participation, and smart planning. Also, in the discussion and concluding section hardly anything is expressed about the role and impact of villagers and how their role could or should be applied and integrated. Furthermore, it is a nice addition (in line 549/550) that the role of a government should also be included, but it stays a very open statement, without any suggestion how this could be applied or what possible consequences could be for the model. Response: We have added a discussion about the villagers and the government in the discussion section. The framework in this study was mainly applied to the consultation and communication process between planners and villagers, and it plays the role of improving the efficiency of communication, which can, to some extent, enhance the effectiveness of villagers' participation in planning. Next to this general, yet important, observation, I have a few more detailed questions, suggestions and remarks. - In the title as well as section 2.4 you mention Multi-criteria. You haven’t addressed that point from my previous review. It still seems very strange to mention this, as there are always a few criteria at stack, so it is always ‘Multi’. It suggests so much more which isn’t taken care of in the paper itself. Please rephrased this. Response: We apologize for misunderstanding your comment about multi-criteria. The multi-criteria are mainly plan indicators and the constraints on their values. These are clearly represented in new Figure 1 as follows. The indicators are listed in Table 2, and are intended to provide a range of input parameters for the subsequent application. In the subsequent application of this study, it is also illustrated that the parameter settings need to follow the range of multi-indicator constraints in Table 2. - Figure 1 is a large and complex interesting scheme, but how is it linked to the model. Which parts are translated or used and why? Make this more explicit, also to stress coherence - Can you explain how the extensive and complex figure 2 can be linked to figure 1, and what is applied in the analysis. There is much details offered, but it seems hardly anything being used. Response: Previous Figure 1 (now deleted) was the idea constructed at the beginning, and latter Figure 2 was added based on the suggestion of other reviewers. Taking into account that the latter already contains relevant information, the former Figure 1 was replaced by the above Figure 1, which proposes the urban renewal process with a multi-party collaborative pattern and closely integrates public participation and smart planning. - What are the green blocks or several dotted (coloured) blocks stands for in figure 2 and what do you want to express with the numbers in between []? You have to explain that also in the caption or in a legend with the figure. Response: The dotted (coloured) blocks represent a major segment of villager participation. We have revised it in the new manuscript. The numbers in between [ ] denote references. We apologize for the misunderstanding and have removed it. - In Table 2 Shenzhen is used several times, while it is not in table 1 anymore. It was in the previous version. Please, stay consistent. Response: We thank you for this comment. We have revised it to stay consistent in the new manuscript. - In figure 4 you have he opportunity to demonstrate how the participation and perspectives and needs of villagers is integrated in the model. This is now very hidden, I could not really discover it. Furthermore, you have to explain the green blocks. Response: We thank you for this comment. We have revised it in the new manuscript（see section2.1） and provided an integrated framework in new figure 1. - In line 367 you have added the assumption about green. But it still stays very vague and general. And you don’t address its impact, composition and meaning for the model. Response: We thank you for this comment. Greenland is generated after the generation of building layout space. It is clearly presented in the new Figure 3. - In section 3.1 also a discussion is offered (at least in the title). How does participation as described in section 1/1/1.2 played in role in this analysis. Response: We thank you for this comment. Section 3.1 was intended to lead into the introduction of Section 3.2, but was incorrectly titled. We have merged the two sections. - Inn line 480/481 you present a very limited interpretation of the ‘needs’ of villagers, only translated into number of houses and distance. Where is the link with figure 1 and 2? Response: We thank you for this comment. It has been added in new Figure 1. - Line 488 about the desire to improve seems broad, but the actual focus in the model is very limited. Response: We thank you for the comment. We have revised it in the new manuscript. - Lines 490-492 are not addressed in the model at all (at least not that I could trace it), so why mention it here as such an obvious impact of the model? Response: In Table 2, the ranges of indicators are listed by residential, commercial, and industrial land. By inputting parameters according to these ranges, a scheme conforming to commercial and industrial land use can be generated. Overall, I would like you to really work on the coherence between the more general background presented in sections 1.1 and 1.2 and how this is reflected in your model, what is taken care of, and what could or should be improved in follow-up studies. Thank you for these helpful comments. We have adjusted the structure and content to improve the coherence between the background and the method. The proposed framework closely integrates the urban renewal process, public participation, and smart planning in the new manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for this improved (third) version. It has really gone through a major revision, in which several aspects were added or revised. Chapter 2.1 has improved a lot. I like your new scheme in figure 3, it is much more comprehensible now. Also the focus is much more on the model itself and not so much distracting towards other issues. The addition in the discussion about participation is fine, gives some more background now.
A minor number of issues is still asking attention:
1) The use of ‘under multi-criteria’ in the title and abstract (but also later in the text) is for me not correct, as that tends too much towards Applying a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) Technique, which is not applied at all (as mentioned before). Only a few criteria are used in the analysis and modelling, but nothing is really balanced determined as it would be when using MCA. It could be changed into ‘using criteria’, but even that is too superfluous/redundant, as in these kind of models different criteria are always applied. Also in the title of 2.3 Multi-Criteria is applied, but to me this is not correct; maybe the word ‘Multi-’ should be left out.
2) Several times you only use the words ‘ intelligent planning’ (starting at line 118 up to line 169, including fig 1) while actually you are referring to ‘intelligent building planning’ (as also covered in the title). Please stay consistent. Using only ‘intelligent planning’ suggests so much more, which is not dealt with at all. In line 170 you use ‘planning goals’, while you mean ‘building planning goals’.
In 2.4 it is stated in the title ‘Planning Algorithm’ while the first sentence only links to building elements. This should also be ‘Building Planning Algorithms’.
3) In line 126 [A1], line 173 [A2], line 205 [A3], and line 417 [A4] appear in the text. What are these referring to?
4) In line 178 it is stated (according to the sentence formulation) that villagers ‘then make a decision’. Is this correct? What kind of decision do they make? Or is it a government that does this?
5) In line 433-434 you come up with a statement about the user interface and its impact. How is this tested? Are there any references to this? This has to be clearly grounded.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, Thank you for your careful and thoughtful comments. We have revised the manuscript according your comments. Five comments are responsed as following:
1) The use of ‘under multi-criteria’ in the title and abstract (but also later in the text) is for me not correct, as that tends too much towards Applying a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) Technique, which is not applied at all (as mentioned before). Only a few criteria are used in the analysis and modelling, but nothing is really balanced determined as it would be when using MCA. It could be changed into ‘using criteria’, but even that is too superfluous/redundant, as in these kind of models different criteria are always applied. Also in the title of 2.3 Multi-Criteria is applied, but to me this is not correct; maybe the word ‘Multi-’ should be left out.
Response: Thank you for your revision suggestion. We have removed the ‘multi-criteria’ from the title and revised all in the text.
2) Several times you only use the words ‘ intelligent planning’ (starting at line 118 up to line 169, including fig 1) while actually you are referring to ‘intelligent building planning’ (as also covered in the title). Please stay consistent. Using only ‘intelligent planning’ suggests so much more, which is not dealt with at all. In line 170 you use ‘planning goals’, while you mean ‘building planning goals’.
In 2.4 it is stated in the title ‘Planning Algorithm’ while the first sentence only links to building elements. This should also be ‘Building Planning Algorithms’.
Response: We thank you for this comment. We have checked and revised it in the whole manuscript.
3) In line 126 [A1], line 173 [A2], line 205 [A3], and line 417 [A4] appear in the text. What are these referring to?
Response: Those may be displayed incorrectly in revision mode. We have checked four sentences in the new manuscript.
4) In line 178 it is stated (according to the sentence formulation) that villagers ‘then make a decision’. Is this correct? What kind of decision do they make? Or is it a government that does this?
Response: Thank you for your comments. The point we are trying to express is that the villagers make a preliminary choice of the generated solutions and the final choice will be submitted to the government for approval. We have revised this in the text (In line 178-179).
5) In line 433-434 you come up with a statement about the user interface and its impact. How is this tested? Are there any references to this? This has to be clearly grounded.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised this sentence and added the reference (In line 434).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the topic has seldomly been discussed in the current literature, the structure and content of the study are not like an academic paper. It is more like a company introducing its software to visualize and prove the accuracy and efficiency of the planning. Therefore, I doubt the theoretical contribution of this paper.
In fact, no matter which approach is adopted to implement urban village redevelopment projects, the rebuilt housing appearance should adhere to the government policies in recent urban village redevelopment projects. In other words, the villagers have no/little power to decide the planning of the relocated high-rise building. Exploring which factors and how those factors influence villagers’ participation in redevelopment projects seems more meaningful. Thus, the authors are encouraged to explain how intelligent planning stimulates villagers to participate in and smooth the urban village redevelopment projects.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper does not present elements of originality, neither theoretical nor operational, nor methodological. See for example:
“Building height and building spacing further affect the plot ratio and building density of the building within the settlement area” or even “six important indicators are selected in this study: maximum building height, building spacing, floor area ratio, building density, setback distance from the road, and green area ratio”, they are normal indicators used in urban planning for at least a century.
Or even self-evident: “From these values, it can be seen visually that apartment houses greatly improve the efficiency of land use and can better meet people's housing needs.”
Some assumptions don't make sense
“In terms of the generation efficiency of the simulation design, the generation time of the design solutions of the four major plots was within 10 s, which greatly saves the time required for manual planning and design compared with the traditional planning and design means.”
Quality design is not a matter of time: “as fast as the best”. Quality design and quality planning are complex processes, involving many different features. A good methodology aims at facing with all these elements and it cannot be reduced, simplified, to very basic quantitative analysis.
Moreover, urban and rural settlements are a matter of fabrics and morphology. They are not simply “objects”. It seems that the authors know nothing about urban processes and urban design.
Some other assumptions are even wrong
“Further comparison revealed that the architectural group division of the design results was similar to that of the actual layout”.
But the old village has nothing in common with the simulation scenario. One is a settlement with defined types and morphologies, the second is an abstract, atopic and non-formal sequence of volumes. Moreover, in the Discussion: “Differing from the common framework of urban village transformation summarised from a management perspective, first, this study analysed the formation of urban villages and the motivation for transformation, and combined that driving process to build a generative design framework from the perspective of specific implementers (villagers).”
But no formation process of the Urban Villages has been studied (or at least it has not been presented in this paper). And again “The villagers' housing and environmental needs were translated into design conditions, that is, the number of houses and the spacing between houses, to provide suitable solutions for the implementation of urban village renovation.”
The “number of houses and the spacing between houses”, are not “housing and environmental needs”! It is no coincidence that the results presented in the conclusions are ontologically incorrect because they are based on inaccurate assumptions and on an evident lack of knowledge of the city's formative processes.
“The results showed that the results of the simulated layout were similar to that of the actual layout”...wrong, they have nothing in common!
“and the floor area ratio and building density of the simulated results were similar to the actual values, which indicates the effectiveness of the rules of the transcription and the design of the program”.... On the contrary, it shows that with the same indicators, the old urban village has urbanity values that the simulation has sadly canceled.
Finally, “Therefore, using this method for renewal planning and design can help us quickly generate a variety of building layout plans with feasibility and practicality (...) providing a reference for decision-making in urban village renewal and effectively providing technical support for rural community autonomy”... in order to destroy any urban and rural morphology, any quality of living, any possibility of creating a sense of identity and belonging. In order to destroy the city (and the landscape). There are numerous studies involving technology to support decision-making and planning procedures. There are numerous bottom-up approaches that place citizens at the center of the city's regenerative processes. But certainly not this dangerous, culturally obsolete, methodological trivialization.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author seeks to propose a generic framework for intelligent planning of sustainable urban villages. To this end, they translate the needs and desires of the executor into planning conditions and provide the executors with intelligent decision aids. The output of the method (e.g., building layout) was verified by comparison to the newly built Changban village in Guangzhou. However, the feasibility of the method should be further discussed.
It seems that the method assumes that buildings are all rectangles. In real world, however, the shape (or the outline) of buildings is a combination of polygons with complex geometry. In this context, the simulation output, e.g., building density and layer out, could be biased.
I believe the urban village is a common phenomenon in China, where the spatial patterns and building style are quite different for rural settlements. The simulated result is well fit with a newly built high-density village in Guangzhou. It’s also suggested to do a quick experiment in other places to better demonstrate the feasibility of your method.
Line 43. You may consider citing following paper here.
Xin Huang et al. 30 m global impervious surface area dynamics and urban expansion pattern observed by Landsat satellites: from 1972 to 2019.
Line 307. Why these four numbers were selected？Could your method deal with block with different area (under the constrain of 85 m2 to 95m2).
Line 325. The average value should be 0.04, not just about 0.02.
Line 327. Could you explain why the simulated result (e.g., building number, FAR and building density) for plot 3 exhibit more disagreements with actual layout.
Table 3. You may omit the “layout” for the first line.
Table 4. “Building height” or “Floor height”?
