From Public Housing to Private Housing: Neglect of Urban Qualities during the Urban Regeneration Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper focuses on public and private housing in urban regeneration in Haifa Israel. There are theoretical significance and practical value in this paper. But there are some suggestions for this paper.

Title:

In this paper, all the contents point to Israel. I suggest the title can be revised and add " in Israel".

Abstract：

(1)The research questions and contents for this article are not clear in the abstract. Please rewrite and illustrate the research questions clearly.

(2)Line 11, authors used "2010-15",please revise it to "2010-2015"

Introduction:

Please add the definition of "private housing" in this paper.

Methodology:

(1) Line152-155, “We evaluated the quality of housing and the built environment using several quantitative urban measures. For example, we traced the changing spatial quality by evaluating walkability in the neighborhood, open vistas, the variety of housing units, the openness of space between buildings, and additional parameters.” ，please provide the sources of indicators.

(2)  Fig.1、Fig.2、Fig.4 is not clear. They cannot see the specific content of the picture and illustration label clearly, please improve the picture quality.

(3) Authors need supplement and illustrate the quantitive methods in this paper clearly, for example: what quantitive methods are used, what formula is used to analyze ...

Results：

The paper stated in the summary “In order to assess the sustainability of the project, we will examine quantitative indicators of its urbanity”, authors need to include in the results a quantitative assessment of sustainability of the project in this papaer.

Discussion and Conclusions：

(1) Line 498-499, “To conclude, the COVID-19 period has taught us not only the value of good urbanity -a neighborhood that contains everything and the desperate need for open”, this is the first time COVID-19 has appeared in this paper. The concluding statement about COVID-19 is very confusing. 

(2) The discussion part and the conclustion part should be separated.

(3) Please add the limitation and further study in this paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This paper focuses on public and private housing in urban regeneration in Haifa Israel. There are theoretical significance and practical value in this paper. But there are some suggestions for this paper.

We thank the reviewer for his/her positive feedback and comments, that helped us improve the article.

Title:

In this paper, all the contents point to Israel. I suggest the title can be revised and add " in Israel".

We appreciate your comments, but in this research Israel is only a case study and not the subject itself.

Abstract：

(1)The research questions and contents for this article are not clear in the abstract. Please rewrite and illustrate the research questions clearly.

Thank you very much for this comment. We rewrote the abstract and illustrated better the research questions.

(2)Line 11, authors used "2010-15",please revise it to "2010-2015"

Thank you for this remark. The years were updated to "2010-2015".

Introduction:

Please add the definition of "private housing" in this paper.

In this paper private housing is not the object we are defining here, we merely point out the process of privatization.

Methodology:

(1) Line152-155, “We evaluated the quality of housing and the built environment using several quantitative urban measures. For example, we traced the changing spatial quality by evaluating walkability in the neighborhood, open vistas, the variety of housing units, the openness of space between buildings, and additional parameters.” ，please provide the sources of indicators.

(2)  Fig.1、Fig.2、Fig.4 is not clear. They cannot see the specific content of the picture and illustration label clearly, please improve the picture quality.

Thank you for this remark. We improved the figures for enabling better visibility of the drawings:

Fig 1 - We enlarged Fig 1

Fig 2 - We deleted Fig 2. This Fig was retrieved from the city archive and can be removed from the article.

Fig 4 – This figure was implemented for orientation only. The red line indicates the exact location of the project, but it does not contain any new information.

(3) Authors need supplement and illustrate the quantitive methods in this paper clearly, for example: what quantitive methods are used, what formula is used to analyze ...

Results：

The paper stated in the summary “In order to assess the sustainability of the project, we will examine quantitative indicators of its urbanity”, authors need to include in the results a quantitative assessment of sustainability of the project in this papaer.

This sentence was deleted from the atricle.

Discussion and Conclusions：

(1) Line 498-499, “To conclude, the COVID-19 period has taught us not only the value of good urbanity -a neighborhood that contains everything and the desperate need for open”, this is the first time COVID-19 has appeared in this paper. The concluding statement about COVID-19 is very confusing. 

The COVID-19 era is a very actual and current event, widely discussed in discourse and research, and requires no special background.

(2) The discussion part and the conclustion part should be separated.

For better understanding the research outcomes we prefer to add the discussion together with the conclusions. Our discussion leads to the research conclusions, therefore they should be tied together for the benefit of the readers to better understand the study.

(3) Please add the limitation and further study in this paper.

The limitation of the research is related to the case study analysis based on programs from before the urban renovation. We could only analyse existing research area according based on the data we obtained from the municipal archives.  See line 178.

and no suggestions for further study (or are there any?)

Thank you very much for this important comment. we added suggestions for future urban renewal process, see line 520-523:

“In order to ensure the well-being of all participants in urban renewal, it will be important to continuously research the optimal interface between private and public capital and the division of powers: the investors on one hand and the residents of the neighborhood and the city on the other.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The subject of the manuscript is interesting and up-to-date. Discussing how urban quality can be undermined by the power of economic lobbies or by the blind lust for profitability on the part of investors in housing construction is a subject that unfortunately is not exhausted. However, the article needs some improvements, especially in the reorganization of its structure. In this sense, I leave here some modest observations, hoping that they may help you.

Keywords

Regarding the chosen keywords (urban renewal; urban regeneration; resilience; public housing; privatization; urban analysis; evaluation), it would be preferable to substitute a few of them by other that can inform better the reader – Suggestion: “urban regeneration; urban resilience; public housing; privatization; urban analysis; project sustainability, Haviva Reich Street Complex”.

Introduction

The Introduction section is designed to succinctly and clearly describe the reason for writing the paper. This section provides sufficient background information for the reader to understand and evaluate the study undertaken. It also provides a rationale for the study. Therefore, it is not need to have a title in the head of the Introduction section (Introduction: National Values and Public Housing before and after Privatization).

In this section, the authors clearly indicated the field of the work and its importance, and what has already been done. A modest literature review in support of the key questions has been done. Therefore, in the last paragraph, authors raised 2 research questions: “What are the values of public housing fabrics undergoing urban renewal?” / “And is the current construction mechanism that relies mainly on the private market capable of providing improved spatial qualities for the built environment?” However, the authors should also outline in a clear manner which is the purposes/objectives of the study and hypotheses, clearly indicating what is original and noteworthy in the present research.

Methodology section

Through carelessness, the authors have left in the first paragraph the general recommendations on what any Method should be:

“The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited.”

Points “2.1. The Ramot Remez Public Housing Neighborhood” and “3.2. The Case Study: The Haviva Reich Site” shouldn’t be part of the Methodology section. These 2 Points, together with the Point “3. Results: Urban Values Following the Renewal”, should constitute an individual section – the case study section, which comes after the Methodology section.

Please note that the methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study. It should provide a clear and concise description of the procedures that were performed. I recommend authors to read “Lin PKuo Y. A guide to write a scientific paper for new writers. Microsurgery. 2012;32:80‐85”, which can help you to structure correctly your future manuscripts.

Lines 415-421 – Authors wrote:

“To conclude, in quantitative terms, construction in the neighborhood became denser. Although this has a positive aspect in terms of sustainable urbanity, the quality of the public open space has fallen on all accounts, including the shrinking open space between the building, the public space that has lost much of its greenness, the inadequacy of other public spaces, the lack of mixed uses, the unimproved walkability, the shortage in effective public transportation and the difficulties of using private vehicles. Finally, the students who used to live in the neighborhood have been pushed out.”

Why mixing in this paragraph “the shortage in effective public transportation and the difficulties of using private vehicles” as negative aspects coming from the urban project/intervention? Sometimes these two aspects may depend exclusively on political decisions or the lack of them, rather than on the solutions advocated for public spaces.

General comment on case study: The comparative analysis of the study area, before and after the intervention, should be further explored.

Discussion and Conclusions section

Lines 498-501 – Authors wrote:

“To conclude, the COVID-19 period has taught us not only the value of good urbanity – a neighborhood that contains everything and the desperate need for open, adjacent and visible areas) but also the huge importance of community resilience and the significant functions of the public authorities responsible for our health and well-being [9].”

Lines 503-504, – Authors wrote:

“We call to integrate public servants in the planning, so that the public interest is given voice.” And what about residents’ participation in the same process? How can people assure the success of any urban regeneration without citizens participation, together with public servants, decision makers, stakeholders? In fact, authors mentioned in the manuscript the residents’ interviews. So, why haven't authors strengthened this important participation in this Conclusion section?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Dear Authors,

The subject of the manuscript is interesting and up-to-date. Discussing how urban quality can be undermined by the power of economic lobbies or by the blind lust for profitability on the part of investors in housing construction is a subject that unfortunately is not exhausted. However, the article needs some improvements, especially in the reorganization of its structure. In this sense, I leave here some modest observations, hoping that they may help you.

We thank the reviewer for his/her positive feedback and comments, that helped us improve the article.

Keywords

Regarding the chosen keywords (urban renewal; urban regeneration; resilience; public housing; privatization; urban analysis; evaluation), it would be preferable to substitute a few of them by other that can inform better the reader – Suggestion: “urban regeneration; urban resilience; public housing; privatization; urban analysis; project sustainability, Haviva Reich Street Complex”.

Thank you for this comment, we added your suggestions to the Keywords.

Introduction

The Introduction section is designed to succinctly and clearly describe the reason for writing the paper. This section provides sufficient background information for the reader to understand and evaluate the study undertaken. It also provides a rationale for the study. Therefore, it is not need to have a title in the head of the Introduction section (Introduction: National Values and Public Housing before and after Privatization).

Thank you for this comment. We deleted the additional information from the introduction title.

In this section, the authors clearly indicated the field of the work and its importance, and what has already been done. A modest literature review in support of the key questions has been done. Therefore, in the last paragraph, authors raised 2 research questions: “What are the values of public housing fabrics undergoing urban renewal?” / “And is the current construction mechanism that relies mainly on the private market capable of providing improved spatial qualities for the built environment?” However, the authors should also outline in a clear manner which is the purposes/objectives of the study and hypotheses, clearly indicating what is original and noteworthy in the present research.

Thank you for this comment, we clarified the research goals in lines 158-160:

“Following these questions, the main goal of this research is to examine the qualitative and quantitative values of the neighborhood after undergoing "urban renewal" in terms of the purity of private money”.

Methodology section

Through carelessness, the authors have left in the first paragraph the general recommendations on what any Method should be:

“The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited.”

Thank you for this important remark. The paragraph was removed from the article.

Points “2.1. The Ramot Remez Public Housing Neighborhood” and “3.2. The Case Study: The Haviva Reich Site” shouldn’t be part of the Methodology section. These 2 Points, together with the Point “3. Results: Urban Values Following the Renewal”, should constitute an individual section – the case study section, which comes after the Methodology section.

Please note that the methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study. It should provide a clear and concise description of the procedures that were performed. I recommend authors to read “Lin PKuo Y. A guide to write a scientific paper for new writers. Microsurgery. 2012;32:80‐85”, which can help you to structure correctly your future manuscripts.

In this article we followed the structure of the journal template. However, we updated the subsection numbers and we added a second subsection for the case study description: 2.1;  2.1.1;  2.1.2

 

Lines 415-421 – Authors wrote:

“To conclude, in quantitative terms, construction in the neighborhood became denser. Although this has a positive aspect in terms of sustainable urbanity, the quality of the public open space has fallen on all accounts, including the shrinking open space between the building, the public space that has lost much of its greenness, the inadequacy of other public spaces, the lack of mixed uses, the unimproved walkability, the shortage in effective public transportation and the difficulties of using private vehicles. Finally, the students who used to live in the neighborhood have been pushed out.”

Why mixing in this paragraph “the shortage in effective public transportation and the difficulties of using private vehicles” as negative aspects coming from the urban project/intervention? Sometimes these two aspects may depend exclusively on political decisions or the lack of them, rather than on the solutions advocated for public spaces.

We appreciate your comment, the following paragraph was added to the article, Lines: 435-437:

“It should be noted that the authorities do not take responsibility as it has been transferred to the private sector, so the complex is neglected in these areas as well.

General comment on case study: The comparative analysis of the study area, before and after the intervention, should be further explored.

The limitation of the research is related to the case study analysis based on programs from before the urban renovation. We could only analyse existing research area according based on the data we obtained from the municipal archives.  See line 178.

Discussion and Conclusions section

Lines 498-501 – Authors wrote:

“To conclude, the COVID-19 period has taught us not only the value of good urbanity – a neighborhood that contains everything and the desperate need for open, adjacent and visible areas) but also the huge importance of community resilience and the significant functions of the public authorities responsible for our health and well-being [9].”

Lines 503-504, – Authors wrote:

“We call to integrate public servants in the planning, so that the public interest is given voice.” And what about residents’ participation in the same process? How can people assure the success of any urban regeneration without citizens participation, together with public servants, decision makers, stakeholders? In fact, authors mentioned in the manuscript the residents’ interviews. So, why haven't authors strengthened this important participation in this Conclusion section?

Thank you for this important comment. Public and residents’ participation is not mandatory in the Israeli planning process, however, was developed partly throughout the planning development. We added a short paragraph relating to the residents’ participation in the planning process, lines 530-533:

“In order to promote the urban renewal process, a public participation process is required, and above all, learning from the inhabitants what are the neighborhood's' values that should be kept after the urban renewal. We call to integrate public servants and public participation in the planning so that the public interest is given voice.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This analysis deals with values that influenced the urban form of a public housing project in the 1950s and the transformation of these values during its urban renewal process in 2010-15 in Haifa (Israel). 

This is a very in-depth study worth publishing: it shows appropriateness and consistency of the point of the arguments and it includes completeness, expansibility, credibility, originality, novelty and usefulness. The use of English is correct and the way to analyze the case study is appropriate for the journal readership.

However, the paper lacks a paragraph on literature review, especially at international level. The authors may decide to add new text in the introduction. The contents to add must give the readership an international overview of the significance of urban renewal/regeneration at international level, especially the effects of capitalist urbanization on urban environments. So, please, take as relevant references the following ones:

1. Culture-led urban renewal and gentrification

- (2017), Culture-led neighbourhood transformations beyond the revitalisation/gentrification dichotomy. Urban Stud. 54 (4), 953–970

- (2018). Handbook of Gentrification Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northampton;

- (2019). Capital City. Gentrification and the real estate state. London-New York: Verso

- (2019). Regenerating Bilbao: From ‘productive industries’ to ‘productive services’. Territorio, 89, 145-154

2. Iconic projects and star-architecture:

- (2017). The icon project: architecture, cities and capitalist globalization. New York: Oxford University Press

- (2020). About Star Architecture: Reflecting on Cities in Europe, Springer

3. Issues of heritage in urban renewal discourses

- (2019) Historic Cities: Issues in Urban Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles

This is why I am looking forward for the new version of the paper, which should present more international overview in the literature review on the paper's themes.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This analysis deals with values that influenced the urban form of a public housing project in the 1950s and the transformation of these values during its urban renewal process in 2010-15 in Haifa (Israel). 

This is a very in-depth study worth publishing: it shows appropriateness and consistency of the point of the arguments and it includes completeness, expansibility, credibility, originality, novelty and usefulness. The use of English is correct and the way to analyze the case study is appropriate for the journal readership.

We thank the reviewer for his/her positive feedback and comments, that helped us improve the article.

However, the paper lacks a paragraph on literature review, especially at international level. The authors may decide to add new text in the introduction. The contents to add must give the readership an international overview of the significance of urban renewal/regeneration at international level, especially the effects of capitalist urbanization on urban environments. So, please, take as relevant references the following ones:

1. Culture-led urban renewal and gentrification

- (2017), Culture-led neighbourhood transformations beyond the revitalisation/gentrification dichotomy. Urban Stud. 54 (4), 953–970

- (2018). Handbook of Gentrification Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northampton;

- (2019). Capital City. Gentrification and the real estate state. London-New York: Verso

- (2019). Regenerating Bilbao: From ‘productive industries’ to ‘productive services’. Territorio, 89, 145-154

2. Iconic projects and star-architecture:

- (2017). The icon project: architecture, cities and capitalist globalization. New York: Oxford University Press

- (2020). About Star Architecture: Reflecting on Cities in Europe, Springer

3. Issues of heritage in urban renewal discourses

- (2019) Historic Cities: Issues in Urban Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles

This is why I am looking forward for the new version of the paper, which should present more international overview in the literature review on the paper's themes.

Thank you for this important comment.

A paragraph relating to the literature review relating to the international level was added to the article, line: 137-154:

 

“Throughout this article we will examine how ideological shifts, such as capitalism or private funds, are reflected economically, permeate government and local conduct, impose its own interests on the built environment and generate facts on the ground [35]. However, the conduct of urban renewal and its consequences also reveal these facts, even when it is not iconic architectural works that blatantly tell the story of capitalism [37; 38]. The process of capitalist globalization is growing into a complex system that dominate the built environment and promote the privatization process which results in privatization of parts of the public spaces, such as the urban renewal process of an innocent urban residential neighborhood, similar to the case study of this research.

Architecture and planning that have expressed a socialist historical heritage give way to architecture and planning that express bourgeois values [36], without preserving previous values - quantitative and qualitative [39], and without a quality new planning environment. Gainza [33] also suggests that the representation of the neighborhood space influences the cultural characteristics of neighborhood transformation. We will examine how the "resuscitation" neighborhood – changes not only its character, but also its occupants and pushes some of the previous occupants out [33, 34]. At the end of the article, we will show that without a deliberate public hand and public participation process, privatized planning will fail.”

 

Also in lines: 462-466:

 

“The article in this issue represents another step in the growing research activity on urban, cultural, social, and economic renewal [33-36], architectural [37-38] and conservation [39]. Although our case study is located in Israel, the lessons we can learn from the study go beyond the boundaries of the state and society. We emphasize urban renewal funded by private entrepreneurs only.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the improvements done.

It is a pity that the comparative evaluation of the case study "before and after" the intervention was not explored further, but I understand that some limitation may have occurred in obtaining technical or institutional data. 

I wish you every success in your professional career.

Reviewer 3 Report

The new text shows the required improvements and it is ready for publication.