Colonial Architecture in Panama City. Analysis of the Heritage Value of Its Monastic Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The chosen subject is of significant interest to the reader and to the academic community.

Methodologically, the paper oscillates between urbanism, architectural history and heritage preservation; this could be made clearer both in the introduction and in the structuring of the conclusions. A number of aspects are alluded to but not brought to a conclusion (e.g. why institutional or "tourism" use should be preferable to replacement with new buildings in the early 20th century beyond the material survival of structures that have lost their function or existed only as ruins).

The impact of monastic institutions on the cityscape of Catholic societies in the Counter-Reformation period was a wide-spread phenomenon (from Warsaw to Prague to Naples to Seville), and so was its reversal in the 19th century. It would have been worth exploring what was part of this international phenomenon and what was specific to Panama City. Generally, the paper addresses the important question of the presence of religious institutions within an urban context in an engaging and informative way. The case studies are well presented and illuminating.

The usage of English in the paper requires some revision. The most obvious point is the use of the term "convent" which is different in meaning from the Spanish or Italian "convento"; if this is not addressed it will cause some fundamental misunderstanding of the paper among readers who are not familiar with Latin-based languages. The fluency of the paper could be significantly improved by eliminating the many periodic sentences and replacing them with shorter, clearer statements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript. We have taken your comments into account, listed here:

• We have reformulated the conclusions trying to make easier the relation with the case studies.
• We see the suggestions to expand the study with international references as positive, but they are out of scope for this paper.
• The usage of English has been reviewed by a native speaker and a lot of minor changes have been done, replacing some long paragraphs or sentences with clearer statements following your suggestions.

Please, find attached the paper reviewed with the Track-Changes active. As the number of minor changes is very high, maybe it is not necessary to list every change, but if you need, just let us know.

Thank you again, and we hope you find this review suitable.

Kind Regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

The text will certainly benefit if the authors can get a native speaker to help with copyediting. 

However, the main issue is not its language. The paper is narrative with its case studies. I am not a historian of Panama City and cannot comment if religious (Catholic) buildings have been documented in such a manner before but the conclusions tend to be generic. There needs to be a greater in-depth analysis.

A suggestion, taking a leaf out of the early portion of the paper where the authors provided an urban context of these religious buildings, is to incorporate or situate the case study more with the urban fabric, i.e. why the convents are important to the city. A historic urban landscape perspective might help (need to substantiate this). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript. We have taken your comments into account, listed here:

• The usage of English has been reviewed by a native speaker and a lot of minor changes have been done, replacing some long paragraphs or sentences with clearer statements following your suggestions.
• We have reformulated the conclusions trying to make easier the relation with the case studies.
• We see the suggestions to expand the study with an historic urban landcape perspective as positive, but they are out of scope for this paper.

Please, find attached the paper reviewed with the Track-Changes active. As the number of minor changes is very high, maybe it is not necessary to list every change, but if you need, just let us know.

Thank you again, and we hope you find this review suitable.

Kind Regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

33: Better use: of Outstanding Universal Value

52-54: Too long sentence

68-71: I recommend rewrite the sentence

Figure 1: some elements must be in English, in order to help their reading (i.e. the scale)

108: and then inscribed on UNESCO's World Heritage List in 1997…

110 Churches and ruins? Or: Churches and architectural/archaeological remains? See line 186

Figure 2 Churchs (sic)  and ruins? Or: Churches and architectural remains?

in the Historic District of Panama /or/ of Panama City/or/ of the City of Panama?

Figure edited by the authors? Include the cartographic origin

148 Don’t forget that before, in 1767, the Jesuits were expelled from all the spanish territories, according to King Carlos III royal decree, see 402

151 expropriated or confiscated?

155 Better use: the so-called Disentailments and confiscations

156 I  recommend: due to the experience of precedent wars during...

164 one of the most important convent cities in the world along with Rome or Lisbon [cite general studies about Seville as a conventual city, like: Pérez Cano, M. Patrimonio y ciudad. El sistema de los conventos de clausura en el Centro Histórico de Sevilla]

195-198: Too long sentence

204 Did the seven convents identified in table 1 lost their conventual status on the same date, in the early 19^th century? I recommend point out this aspect in the table, or elaborate a clear chronology because it is difficult to deduce from the text: 148: 1821; 150: 1857 (decree for sales by public auctions?); 288: 1833; 313: 1862; 318: 1865

222 expropiating? or confiscating?

224 expropriated see 222

250, 266, 279 Use of different spellings: facade and façade

312, 313 the last nuns abandoned it in 1862. See 318

318 after the expulsion of the nuns in 1865… What is the real date?

355-356 Avoid repetition: for commercial use with commercial premises

381, 383, 385 Avoid very close repetitions: currently

448 expropriations or confiscations?

451, 457 Panama or Panama City or City of Panama? See 469

482 Better: of the cultural property.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript. We have taken your comments into account, listed here:

• The usage of English has been reviewed by a native speaker and a lot of minor changes have been done, replacing some long paragraphs or sentences with clearer statements following your suggestions.
• We have reformulated the conclusions trying to make easier the relation with the case studies.

Specific corrections listed: 

• 33: it is the title of the document [2] referred.
• 52-54: Ok, modified with commas
• 68-71: Ok, the sentence has been rewritten
• Figure 1: Ok, The graphic has been edited, removing irrelevant information, and adding English references.
• 108: Ok, sentence removed (redundant)
• 110 Ok, sentence removed (irrelevant bullets for the research)
• Figure 2 Ruinous Remains is the definition as the title 6.3.
• Historic District
• Figure edited by the authors? The origin is the plan of 1609 of Cristobal de Roda Cartography as written in the text, and the source is in the Bibliography.
• 148 It is correct, it is an exception.
• 151 Ok, we will use confiscated
• 155 Ok, improved following suggestions
• 156 Ok, improved following suggestions
• 164 Ok, reference added
• 195-198: Ok, improved following suggestions
• 204  It is not the same case for all, that´s the reason of just listing all the events.
• 222  Ok, we will use confiscating
• 224  Ok, we will use confiscated
• 250, 266, 279 Ok, just using facade.
• 312, 313  Ok
• 318 Ok, 1865 was a mistake, 1862 is the real date.
• 355-356 Ok, improved following suggestions
• 381, 383, 385 Ok, improved following suggestions
• 448  Ok, we will use confiscations
• 451, 457 Panama City, like the title
• 482  Ok, improved following suggestions

Please, find attached the paper reviewed with the Track-Changes active. As the number of minor changes is very high, maybe it is not necessary to list every change, but if you need, just let us know.

Thank you again, and we hope you find this review suitable.

Kind Regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 36:           Change “which” to “that”

Line 48:           Change “From” to “For”

Line 51:           Change presence on” to “presence in”

Line 109:         Change “The later” to “The latter”

Line 114:         Delete comma and add “as, i.e. “… as an analytical ….”

Line 119:         Missing “is” in front of “occupied”?

Line 123:         Delete “a” from “a religious buildings”, and “exists” should be in the singular form

Line 131:         “three fourths” should be hyphenated

Line 135:         Delete “the” from “…the religious architecture…”

Line 159 to 162:          Rephrase the line. The sentence is unclear. Suggest breaking up into shorter sentences.

Line 163:         Delete “the” from “the Table 1”

Line 233:         Delete comma and add en-dash

Line 372:         Change “that” to “which”

Line 376:         Insert “was” before “carried out”

Line 392:         “two thirds” should be hyphenated

Line 443:         Change “its use” to “their use”

Line 459:         Delete “the” from “the case studies”

Line 474 to 476           Rephrase the sentence for clarity

Line 500:         “absolute” is redundant

Line 518:         Missing “the” before “use of a building”

Line 526:         “own” is redundant

Line 535:         “re use” should be a single word

Line 540:         “re use” should be a single word

Line 554:         Replace “our” with “the”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript again. We have taken your comments into account and we have corrected all the observations made.

Please, find attached the paper reviewed with the Track-Changes active.

Thank you again, and we hope you find this review suitable.

Kind Regards,