A Study on the Changes in Sharehouse Design in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article “A Study on the Changes in Sharehouse Design in Korea” can be classified as the case study as it explored the changes in communal space, personal space, and operating method in six sharehouses built between 2011–2019 in Korea. The topic is relevant as the number of just one member households is increasing in numerous countries and the concepts of living are changing due to current demographics and economic trends. Some suggestions for article’s improvement: The list of references is quite short and the examples of buildings constitute the half of it. The cited articles are mainly from the Korean context. The review of international context related with the topic under analysis would be beneficial. This introduction of the international context of the topic could be added to the introductory section. The relevance and the aim of the research should be clearly stated in the introductory section. The research methodology must be described in greater detail in the 2nd chapter. The sources or authors of the images utilized must be indicated. The 5th chapter provides the recommendation for the future design of sharehouses. This chapter is entitled “Discussion”; however, I would suggest naming it “Design recommendations” as there is no evident discussion in this chapter. Moreover, the conclusions chapter is missing and it should be added. The analysis chapter has several “sub-conclusions”. I suggest to move them to the conclusions section: to use them to formulate the overall conclusions at the end of the paper.Author Response
Point 1: The list of references is quite short and the examples of buildings constitute the half of it. The cited articles are mainly from the Korean context. The review of international context related with the topic under analysis would be beneficial. This introduction of the international context of the topic could be added to the introductory section.
Response 1: More recently published international works in journals were studied to expand range of literary sources.
[Added reference]
|
[1] |
H. Jarvis, "Sharing, togetherness and intentional degrowth," Progress in Human Geography, 2019, vol. 43(2), p. 256–275 |
|
[2] |
Y. Wang and T. Otsuki, "A Study on House Sharing in China's Young Generation—Based on a Questionnaire Survey and Case Studies in Beijing," Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2016, vol. 24 |
|
[3] |
K. Grundström, "Dwelling on-the-move together in Sweden: sharing exclusive housing in times of marketization," Social & Cultural Geography, 2021. |
|
[4] |
D. Oana and R. Richard, "Living alone together in Tokyo share houses," Social & Cultural Geography, 2020. |
|
[6] |
A. Rowan and R. Richard, "Parental co-residence, shared living and emerging adulthood in Europe: semi-dependent housing across welfare regime and housing system contexts," Journal of Youth Studies, 2015. |
|
[7] |
J. K. H. Chan and Z. Ye, "Sharing Space: Urban Sharing, Sharing a Living Space, and Shared Social Spaces," Space and Culture, 2021, vol. 24(1), p. 157–169, |
|
[8] |
E. Wilkinson and I. O. Alcázar, "Stranger danger? The intersectional impacts of shared housing on young people's health & wellbeing," Health & Place, 2019, vol. 60, |
|
[12] |
S. Heath, "Balancing the formal and the informal: the relational challenges of everyday practices of co-operation in shared housing co-operatives in the UK," Social & Cultural Geography, 2020. |
|
[15] |
D. Y. Kim, "A Study of a Shared Housing and Planning Criteria," Journal of the Korean housing association, 2015, vol. 26(1), pp. 139-150 |
Point 2: The relevance and the aim of the research should be clearly stated in the introductory section. The research methodology must be described in greater detail in the 2nd chapter.
Response 2: The introduction and methodology were updated with reflecting recent international research.
Point 3: The sources or authors of the images utilized must be indicated.
Response 3: The sources or authors of the images were indicated
Point 4: The 5th chapter provides the recommendation for the future design of sharehouses. This chapter is entitled “Discussion”; however, I would suggest naming it “Design recommendations” as there is no evident discussion in this chapter.
Response 4: The 5th chapter renamed as “Conclusion: Design recommendations”
Point 5: Moreover, the conclusions chapter is missing and it should be added. The analysis chapter has several “sub-conclusions”. I suggest to move them to the conclusions section: to use them to formulate the overall conclusions at the end of the paper.
Response 5: Conclusions chapter was added and several “sub-conclusions” in analysis chapter were moved to conclusions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Page 2 lines 46-49 The sentence is too long and hard to understand. Please convert into two sentences.
Page 2 Table 1 Sharehouse definition is TOO broad. Add/mention other characteristics that make a project a “sharehouse.” For example, Sharehouses are always managed/coordinated OR there is someone in charge of resident selection and unit operation. This is a characteristic that is not necessarily present in co-housing or room share….
Page 3 lines 84-87 The sentence is too long and hard to understand. Please convert into two sentences. Additionally, land prices (value) sometimes precede housing prices, your research does not explain which causes which, so I recommend just mentioning that land and housing prices are high rather than trying to claim one caused the other.
Page 4 line 98 change “…area…that HAVE high…” to “…area…that HAS high…”
Page 4 line 100 change to “offering discounts for residentS with…”
Page 4 line 105 remove “to avoid uniformity” designing something differently AVOIDS uniformity, the second clause is repetitive.
Page 5 line 112 What is the bathroom situation in Tongui-dong House? Please describe it in this paragraph
Page 6 line 130-131 Micro housing is NOT the first Sharehouses that you share that has private bathrooms and kitchens. Please make clear what you consider “conventional” Sharehouses? Are the examples in your research conventional or not? If not, be sure to DEFINE what a conventional Sharehouses is.
Page 9 Line 186-187 do the dorm-style rooms have shared bathrooms too? Pleas specify
Page 9 Line 189 Please change the heading “sub conclusion” for a more descriptive heading
Page 9 line 194 Your research does NOT follow each of the projects over time, you do not have the methods or data/evidence to make this claim for any one project.
Page 10 line 205 same comment as previous one
Page 12 line 263 Please change the heading “sub conclusion” for a more descriptive heading
Author Response
Point 1: Page 2 lines 46-49 The sentence is too long and hard to understand. Please convert into two sentences.
Response 1: The sentence was converted into two sentences.
Point 2: Page 2 Table 1 Sharehouse definition is TOO broad. Add/mention other characteristics that make a project a “sharehouse.” For example, Sharehouses are always managed/coordinated OR there is someone in charge of resident selection and unit operation. This is a characteristic that is not necessarily present in co-housing or room share….
Response 2: Table 1 was modified to narrow the definition of Sharehouse, and the source of “Table 1” was indicated.
Point 3: Page 3 lines 84-87 The sentence is too long and hard to understand. Please convert into two sentences. Additionally, land prices (value) sometimes precede housing prices, your research does not explain which causes which, so I recommend just mentioning that land and housing prices are high rather than trying to claim one caused the other.
Response 3: The sentence was converted into two sentences, and mentioning about housing prices was modified
Point 4: Page 4 line 98 change “…area…that HAVE high…” to “…area…that HAS high…”
Response 4: Modified according to review
Point 5: Page 4 line 100 change to “offering discounts for residentS with…”
Response 5: Modified according to review
Point 6: Page 4 line 105 remove “to avoid uniformity” designing something differently AVOIDS uniformity, the second clause is repetitive.
Response 6: Modified according to review
Point 7: Page 5 line 112 What is the bathroom situation in Tongui-dong House? Please describe it in this paragraph
Response 7: Bathroom situation is added
Point 8: Page 6 line 130-131 Micro housing is NOT the first Sharehouses that you share that has private bathrooms and kitchens. Please make clear what you consider “conventional” Sharehouses? Are the examples in your research conventional or not? If not, be sure to DEFINE what a conventional Sharehouses is.
Response 8: the term of “conventional” was modified as “typical sharehouses”
Point 9: Page 9 Line 186-187 do the dorm-style rooms have shared bathrooms too? Pleas specify
Response 9: Bathroom situation was modified
Point 10: Page 9 Line 189 Please change the heading “sub conclusion” for a more descriptive heading
Point 11: Page 9 line 194 Your research does NOT follow each of the projects over time, you do not have the methods or data/evidence to make this claim for any one project.
Point 12: Page 10 line 205 same comment as previous one
Point 13: Page 12 line 263 Please change the heading “sub conclusion” for a more descriptive heading
Response 10,11,12,13: sub-conclusions on case studies & result section were moved to “Conclusion: Design recommendations” section to expand the conclusion & discussion. Conclusion section was updated for relevant contribution and design recommendations.
Reviewer 3 Report
this is a potentially interesting paper in light of demographic changes in Korea and internationally. The motivation to do the research is clear and the choice of six case studies seems appropriate. That they all fall within the last decade is also an important factor as the analysis shows that there have been changes to the way sharehouses are conceived, designed and operated that cater to increasing diversity in the population.
Nevertheless, as a research project, there are some shortcomings that should be addressed in a revision to the paper manuscript before it can be published (in my opinion).
- In the Introduction, the different hosing types are described in Table 1. What is the source of these definitions? Citations or references for these would help contextualise and substantiate these definitions.
- The metthodolgy section is woefully thin. Indeed, this is the major shortcoming of the paper in its present form. It would be important to discuss the framework by which the six cases have been analysed, how the different elements on the framework have come to hand and what the framework says about sharehouses overall.
- In a short journal article such as this, there may not be space to allow the six cases to be introduced and then later discussed in detail. Could this part of the paper be made more efficient by combining these section – particularly in order to free up space in which to discuss the methodology in more detail?
- In several of the case studies I find it difficult to reconcile the stated number of rooms with the plan and section that is provided. For example, Case C notes there to be 14 rooms and yet when I look at the typical floor plan I see six rooms and in the cross section I see 4 ½ floors. That would generate at least 27 rooms. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the paper could be more clear about the arrangements.
- The results are potentially interesting, but without seeing the analytical framework for the analysis the key findings seem more than a little arbitrary.
- The tables are a good way of summarising the key factors considered, but they can also tell a different story to the one being told by the authors. For example, developments in the middle part of last decade (cases C and D) do not give evidence for progressive introduction of private facilities for residents, as the article claims. If anything, case D is a step backward.
- In the Discussion section, the matter of spatial planning is suddenly and only briefly introduced to us. If this is one of the key recommendations there must be a more coherent argument for why spatial planning practices should reflect trends. Some would argue that spatial planning should remain flexible enough to allow for new trends that reflect changing demographics. The lesson here is that too often it is difficult to make new innovations acceptable within regulatory planning practices bound by rules.
I look forward to reviewing a revised version of the article.
Author Response
Point 1: In the Introduction, the different hosing types are described in Table 1. What is the source of these definitions? Citations or references for these would help contextualise and substantiate these definitions.
Response 1: The source of “Table 1” was indicated
Point 2: The metthodolgy section is woefully thin. Indeed, this is the major shortcoming of the paper in its present form. It would be important to discuss the framework by which the six cases have been analysed, how the different elements on the framework have come to hand and what the framework says about sharehouses overall.
Response 2: The introduction and methodology were updated with reflecting recent research. More recently published international works in journals were studied to expand range of literary sources.
[Added reference]
|
[1] |
H. Jarvis, "Sharing, togetherness and intentional degrowth," Progress in Human Geography, 2019, vol. 43(2), p. 256–275 |
|
[2] |
Y. Wang and T. Otsuki, "A Study on House Sharing in China's Young Generation—Based on a Questionnaire Survey and Case Studies in Beijing," Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2016, vol. 24 |
|
[3] |
K. Grundström, "Dwelling on-the-move together in Sweden: sharing exclusive housing in times of marketization," Social & Cultural Geography, 2021. |
|
[4] |
D. Oana and R. Richard, "Living alone together in Tokyo share houses," Social & Cultural Geography, 2020. |
|
[6] |
A. Rowan and R. Richard, "Parental co-residence, shared living and emerging adulthood in Europe: semi-dependent housing across welfare regime and housing system contexts," Journal of Youth Studies, 2015. |
|
[7] |
J. K. H. Chan and Z. Ye, "Sharing Space: Urban Sharing, Sharing a Living Space, and Shared Social Spaces," Space and Culture, 2021, vol. 24(1), p. 157–169, |
|
[8] |
E. Wilkinson and I. O. Alcázar, "Stranger danger? The intersectional impacts of shared housing on young people's health & wellbeing," Health & Place, 2019, vol. 60, |
|
[12] |
S. Heath, "Balancing the formal and the informal: the relational challenges of everyday practices of co-operation in shared housing co-operatives in the UK," Social & Cultural Geography, 2020. |
|
[15] |
D. Y. Kim, "A Study of a Shared Housing and Planning Criteria," Journal of the Korean housing association, 2015, vol. 26(1), pp. 139-150 |
Point 3: In a short journal article such as this, there may not be space to allow the six cases to be introduced and then later discussed in detail. Could this part of the paper be made more efficient by combining these section – particularly in order to free up space in which to discuss the methodology in more detail?
Response 3: Table 2 were modified
Point 4: In several of the case studies I find it difficult to reconcile the stated number of rooms with the plan and section that is provided. For example, Case C notes there to be 14 rooms and yet when I look at the typical floor plan I see six rooms and in the cross section I see 4 ½ floors. That would generate at least 27 rooms. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the paper could be more clear about the arrangements.
Response 4: Floor plans, sections were modified and ‘Unit numbers vary by floors’ were noted for more clear arrangements.
Point 5: The results are potentially interesting, but without seeing the analytical framework for the analysis the key findings seem more than a little arbitrary.
Response 5: Result section was modified and analytical frameworks were added. sub-conclusions on result section were moved to “Conclusion: Design recommendations” section to expand the conclusion & discussion. Conclusion section was updated for relevant contribution and design recommendations.
Point 6: The tables are a good way of summarising the key factors considered, but they can also tell a different story to the one being told by the authors. For example, developments in the middle part of last decade (cases C and D) do not give evidence for progressive introduction of private facilities for residents, as the article claims. If anything, case D is a step backward.
Response 6: Progressive introduction of private facilities (cases C and D) were added in the article.
Point 7: In the Discussion section, the matter of spatial planning is suddenly and only briefly introduced to us. If this is one of the key recommendations there must be a more coherent argument for why spatial planning practices should reflect trends. Some would argue that spatial planning should remain flexible enough to allow for new trends that reflect changing demographics. The lesson here is that too often it is difficult to make new innovations acceptable within regulatory planning practices bound by rules.
Response 7: Conclusion section was updated for relevant contribution and design recommendations.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Singletons is not a Pharisees commonly used to describe single individuals. I suggest changing it to single or unmarried people.
Author Response
Point 1: Singletons is not a Pharisees commonly used to describe single individuals. I suggest changing it to single or unmarried people.
Response 1: I have modified "singletons" to "unmarried people" for describing single individuals
Point 2: Moderate English changes required
Response 2: Manuscript was checked by a certified native English-speaking editor
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
