Apsa Paper Revision

1

10th International Congress of Asian Planning Schools Association “FUTURE OF ASIAN CITIES” 24 -26 November, 2009, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India

Balancing the Paradox of Modern Cities in Traditional Asia: A Case Study

of Seoul, South Korea

Maintaining Harmony – Traditional and Modern

Blinded Copy Blinded Copy, Blinded Copy Blinded – Blinded – Blinded

___________________________________________________________________________

1.0 INTRODUCTION

“Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.” - Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

Maintaining a balance of constant change and continuity in the urban fabric is a particular

challenge in the ever-changing landscapes of Asian cities. The degradation of place through uncontrolled development undermines cultural heritage where, “heritage is an essential vehicle that conveys the message from the past in both its positive and negative aspects, both of which should be enlightened as a lesson for future development” [Akagawa and Sirisrisak 2008: 188]. The conservation of cultural heritage through the built environment is especially important in Asia, where many cities are the remnants of ancient civilizations dating from thousands of years in the past. Not only is the built environment important in shaping civic identity and collective memory, Richard Florida’s well-known theory on economic development in a globalized, knowledge-based economy concludes that a city’s ‘sense of place’ is vital to attract and retain the highly mobile and productive ‘creative class’ and ultimately, generate economic growth. The emerging focus of city builders in ‘soft’ infrastructure, promoting economic growth through culture and creativity, is illustrated by Florida’s “Creative Index” for competitive cities [2005: 21].

Nevertheless, historic landscapes are commonly exploited in Asia by a rapid process of modernization on the one hand that results in the destruction of traditional urban fabric or, the commodification of heritage through international tourism and commercial interests on the other. The evolution of cultural conservation approaches has shifted towards a market orientation that focuses upon the relics of history as a product for consumption in the global tourism industry. The concept of ‘heritage’, the most modern phase of conservation approaches, recognizes the “link between the preservation for its intrinsic value, and as a resource for the modern community as a commercial activity” [quoted in Nasser, 2008: 471]. As culture becomes a key instrument in promoting economic development, with it emerges the tension between heritage for its intrinsic value and commodified version of it. In order to achieve and maintain ‘a sense of place’, planners in Asia need to find the balance between modernization and tradition, and global consumption versus local cultural value. The challenge of the urban planner in Asia is to foster a sense of place and continuity in the context of rapid change and economic development.

How can planners conserve the cultural landscapes of Asian cities in the midst of rapid urbanization and the globalization of national economies? Jane Jacobs’ maxim, “Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings,” conveys that continuity is achieved through the built environment. However, in the midst of rapid urbanization in Asia, urban landscapes are rapidly changing to the point of non-recognition. As Asian cities embrace the future, the drive towards development is often at the expense of the rich history built into the urban fabric. For example, rapid urbanization in Seoul, South Korea in the 20th century nearly destroyed all of its 600 years of history. Nevertheless, in Seoul, the resilience of traditional urban form is demonstrated in


2


spite of a tragic history of colonialism, civil war and aggressive industrialization. The experience of Seoul reveals that through the process of modernization of traditional society, culture is not lost, although it can be overlooked. At the same time culture cannot be fixed, it must evolve. Like a handful of sand that slips between the fingers, the inherent value of culture is lost when grasped too firmly.

The following is a case study of Seoul, to claim an Asian model of an urban landscape harmoniously integrating modernity and tradition. The first part of the essay outlines the history of the relationship between culture and the built form in Seoul revealing that modernization of the city has been influenced and modified by colonial and Western forces, but nevertheless remains rooted in distinctly East Asian urban practices as exemplified by the naturalization of the modern apartment and the re-investment in old inner-city neighbourhoods that harmonize traditional with contemporary architecture. The second part of the paper analyzes the current direction of the Seoul Metropolitan Government’s (SMG) urban regeneration initiatives. The current direction of the SMG is shown to encourage development that privileges cultural memory, public realm enhancement and ecological benefits, although competing ideologies of neoliberalism and commercialization are still obstacles to overcome. 2.0 “PARADOXAL SEOUL”

2.1 Traditional Urbanism

Seoul is an historical city over 600 years old. It’s urban framework remained virtually

untouched in the first 500 years of its existence as the capital of the Choson dynasty (1392-1910). Now, Seoul has developed from the rubble of the Korean War to an ultra modern city in less than half a century. Tourist guides, like the Lonely Planet, advertise the city as “Paradoxal Seoul” where, “beneath the manic modernity, Korea remains arguably the most Confucian nation in Asia. Like nowhere else in Asia, younger generations of Koreans, particularly in Seoul, still feel (and do consider themselves devoted to) the firm pull of culture and tradition” [Robinson 2006: 10]. Despite the drastic changes of the 20th century, the modern city of Seoul maintains a distinguishable traditionalism. Although Seoul’s experience of modernization in the 20th century is weaved with a tragic history of Japanese colonization, the Cold War and military dictatorship, in the 21st century, Seoul serves as a model for the harmonization of modernity and tradition in the midst of rapid change.

The modern city of Seoul was founded on the tradition of pungsu, or fengshui in Chinese, adapted by King Taejo, first king of the Choson dynasty [Ryu 2004: 9]. According to fengshui principles, the layout of the city was guided by the waterways and the geographical configuration of the surrounding mountains. Of two major types of fengshui-based landscape designs for mountainous regions, Seoul was formed according to the ‘convoluted patterning’ (Jangpung-Deuksu in Korean), which is often related to promoting military security and rice production [Hong et al. 2007: 227]. The traditional practice of fengshui is a fusion of natural and cultural considerations in the process of land evaluation and development. Forestry professor at Kookmin University, Sun Kee Hong, explains that, “fengshui theory views biophysical entities through the lens of empirical cultural knowledge, so that holistically-meaningful sustainability is melded with cultural historical aspects of the human environment” [222]. That is, fengshui provides the theoretical foundation for the modern practice of holistic landscape ecology in Korea [236]. Fengshui remains one of the most significant legacies of the Choson dynasty on the urban form of Seoul. However, a period of exponential growth and disregard for natural and cultural heritage replaced fengshui with the ‘development-first’ principle of the development-state era.


3


Figure 1. An 18th century painting of the urban landscape pattern in Seoul depicts connectivity through a river-stream-road network and small remnant forest patches dissected by residential and agricultural areas and largely surrounded by mountains, adhering to Fengshui land evaluation principles [Hong et al., 228].

2.2 Colonial and ‘Reactionary’ Urbanism

The year of Japan’s colonization of Korea in 1910 marks the beginning of a drastic departure from Seoul’s traditional urbanism and the beginning of the modernization of the city. In his study on modernism and development in Seoul, Hyungmin Pai explains how colonization replaced traditional practices like fengshui with the introduction of rational techniques from the West to redevelop and expand urban areas; “For the Japanese to exploit fully the land resources of Korea it had to be recognized in a rational and systematic manner” [110]. For example, the German practice of Umlegung, adapted by the Japanese, introduced the repartitioning of lots in the city for expansion and building [110]. Rather than adding to the existing fabric, Japanese colonization brought in a new morphological order centred on large boulevards and European style buildings. The massive colonial government building erected in the place of Gwanghwamoon (Seoul’s most prominent gate of the wall encircling the old city) overwhelmed Gyeongbok palace, political and cultural centre of the Choson dynasty [111]. This period of colonial urbanism was the opposite of harmonious integration with the traditional urban structure of Seoul and introduced a new scale controlled by monumental artefacts. During this colonial period, “it seemed to many that colonialism, urbanization, capitalism, and modernization were in fact one and the same thing…To be on the side of modernization was to be a Japanese sympathizer and a traitor” [114]. Modernization was seen as a foreign invader, not of the Korean people.

The legacy of colonial urbanism continued after liberation. After nearly half a century of colonial rule and the devastation of the Korean War (1950-1953), Seoul experienced a period of “reactionary urbanism” led by Park Chung Hee for nearly two decades of military dictatorship (1961-1979) [Pai 1997: 121]. A post-war strategy of clearance and bulldozing began with the state-led clearance of slums that proliferated after the war brought refugees from around the country into Seoul [Lee 2000: 6]. ‘Bulldozer mayor’, Kim Hyun Ok, appointed by Park Chung Hee in 1966, bulldozed through mountains and over rivers to build roads while proclaiming the modernist dictum, “the city is lines” [Ryu 2004: 25]. Park Chung Hee-style urbanism in Seoul was a continuation of the monumental scale of colonial urbanism. Nevertheless, urban regeneration under Park Chung Hee reclaimed the


4


modernization of Seoul for the people of Korea, “By taking over the former headquarters of the Japanese government, Park Chung Hee's regime reformed Sejong-no into the representative street of the nation” [11].

Although the Park Chung Hee regime is often considered the starting point of Korea’s high-growth era, marked by uncontrolled development and supported by a singular focus to industrialize the country, the promotion of traditional culture was a main priority. The official discourse of the 1960s and 1970s dictated that, “while culture must be national, ethnic, and traditional, development must have a modern face” [Pai 1997: 121]. Nationalist cultural policies of the military regime encouraged the construction of national museums of art and culture. Specifications for architectural competitions for the National Museum and Sejong Cultural Centre required that the new building emulate traditional Korean architecture and incorporate elements from existing ancient monuments [115]. Insa-dong, still one of the largest art clusters in Seoul for Korean art shops and traditional teahouses, experienced its heyday during this time [Kim 2007: 267]. The return of Gwanghwamoon to the centre of Gyeongbok Palace, in front of the former colonial government building, also spurred a wave of cultural activity [Pai 1997: 116]. Gwanghwamoon accommodated many public art museums as the historic, cultural, political and economic centre of Seoul, and in fact the whole country, as Koreans began to pay more attention to their traditional culture in the 1970s [Kim 2007: 266]. Ironically, it is during the time of Park Chung Hee’s reactionary urbanism that Korea experienced a revival in traditional culture.

Figure 2. In 1967, Park Chung Hee naturalizes large colonial-era boulevards into Seoul’s urban landscape and erects the statue of Admiral Yi Sun-sin in Sejong-no at the intersection of Gwanghwamun. Photo taken by author, July 2008.

Nevertheless, the discourses of development and of culture were separate during this period, indicating a contradictory relationship between modernity and tradition. Culture and development were pursued as separate and unrelated entities. This resulted in the unfortunate loss of much of Seoul’s traditional urban fabric as the monumental architecture of the military regime demolished ancestral temples and sacred territories in the name of modernism. Pai writes of this tragic separation of modern and tradition observing that, "On the one hand, there is a discourse in which culture is a thing that can somehow exist on its own: reproduced, for example, in the form of a museum secluded in a palace, or in the forced preservation of residential neighbourhoods. On the other, there is a tortured modernism that allows itself to become the ideological face of development” [121]. As modernist urbanism took hold as the ideological face of development in the city, science and engineering were considered to be formless and culture-free tools, mandating that architecture express rationalism and technology, rather than traditional cultural values.

2.3 Modernist Urbanism


5


Indeed, the Korean intellectual context of the time was greatly influenced by Western urbanism, particularly the modernist theories of Swiss architect, Corbusier. Western urbanism was imported to Korea through prominent architects like Kim Joong Up who worked in Corbusier’s studio in the 1950s [Gelézeau 2007]An article written in 1970 provides a snapshot of the international perception of the modernization in Seoul as a process of acculturation of the urban landscape, “The acceleration in urban and regional development is ascribed to “Japanization” stage superimposed on the American-led international influence of Korean affairs” [Meier 1970: 391]. Seoul’s embrace of Western urbanism appears as a self-negation of traditional urbanism as modern complexes and apartment buildings became the new norm during the development-state era.

Modernist urbanism drastically changed Seoul’s traditional urban fabric into the 1980s as the country proceeded to industrialize into a high-technology society. Urban redevelopment policy in the old part of the city built over traditional building forms and replaced them with high-rise complexes and Western-style modern apartment buildings. In 1981-1982, the Olympic bid was the premise for the national government’s continued policy of clearance and redevelopment in order to project a modern image of Seoul to the world [Douglass 2008: 5]. From the late 1980’s onward, a steep increase in modern apartment buildings completely transformed the image of the city [Gelézeau 2007]. By 2006, modern apartment buildings represented 53 per cent of the housing stock from 4 per cent in the 1970s. Meanwhile single-family detached homes, the traditional hanok, went from 88 to 25 per cent of the housing stock during the same period of time [Gelézeau 2007]. By the 21st century, modern apartment buildings replaced traditional forms as the housing norm in Seoul.

Nevertheless, Valérie Gelézeau’s study and extensive fieldwork on modern apartment buildings in Seoul reveals that the modernization of Seoul was not a negation of traditional culture, nor an annihilation of the traditional urban fabric. Rather, Gelézeau argues that the superimposition of modern structures upon the traditional organization of land means that Western modernist urbanism was not a basic transfer of Western practices, but an adaptation of a mixture of Western urban theories to the Korean context. Modernist urbanism in Korea was a synthesis of two irreconcilable theories in the West, that of American Clarence Perry’s concept of the neighbourhood unit and low-rise detached homes; and Corbusier’s high-rise towers in the park, in order to solve the real challenge of land scarcity and exponential growth in Seoul [Gelézeau 2007]. The adaptation of Western urbanism to help provide solutions to Korea’s urban challenges created a distinctly Korean model of modernist urbanism

Despite the large-scale and widespread development of modern apartment buildings in Seoul, Gelézeau argues that the foundations of the city remain based on the traditional fengshui principles established in the first 500 years of the city’s existence. The street network remains largely influenced by the notion of the peripherality of royal palaces to the natural topography as opposed to the notion of centrality in traditional Occidental cities such as the public square and the roman forum [Gelézeau 1997: 72]. The resilience of Seoul’s traditional urban framework is attributed to the persistence of a street network based on fengshui principles of connectivity and the networking of stream with mountain and village, or human habitation [Hong et al. 2007: 223].

Moreover, Gelézeau challenges the tendency to equate the improvement of housing conditions with technical advances from the “West”. The modern comfort of the Western-style apartment complex is often contrasted by Seoulites themselves with the traditional hanok typology, which symbolizes a period of ‘under-development’ and poverty [Gelézeau 2001: 412]. Nevertheless, Gelézeau demonstrates technological advances such as central heating in apartment complexes as a predominantly Korean advancement of the ondol heating system, an ancient form of central heating transmitted underground, in the traditional house [Gelézeau 2001: 409].


6


Figure 3. Illustration of the traditional underground heating system, ondol, from Gelézeau’s fieldwork [2001: 409].

Gelézeau’s study also reveals that the organization of space within modern apartments still reflects the layout of the traditional hanok and courtyard. For example, balconies in modern apartment buildings do not act as an exterior, recreational space separate from indoor household activities as they do in the Western prototype. Rather, the balconies of apartments in Korea take on the functions that were devoted to the courtyard of the traditional Korean home, such as the washing and drying of clothes and storage space for bulk domestic products and foods [2001: 413]. As such, the balcony of the modern apartment exists as an urban form of the traditional courtyard. In this way, Gelézeau calls into question the simplistic dichotomies between ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’, ‘Western-ness’ and ‘Korean-ness’. Rather than a sign of Seoul’s acculturation, Gelézeau identifies the modern apartment as a contemporary symbol of its distinct identity. Gelezéau’s work alludes to a new hybridity of space emerging in Seoul where modern forms are adapted for traditional uses and also, traditional forms take on new uses.

2.4 Hybrid Urbanism

The further democratization of the country, including Seoul’s first local elections for mayor and district heads (Seoul is separated into 25 different districts, or ‘gu’ in Korean) in 1995, opened up the way for community-led development [Kim 2006: 1]. In the same year, a citizen’s group called ‘Citizen’s Solidarity for Sustainable City’ was established and demanded alternative approaches to development that respected traditional culture and natural environment [Douglass 2008: 21]. As the proliferation of the modern apartment building was peaking and creating a new urban frontier in Seoul, democratization facilitated a small, but notable return of interest in traditional architecture and urbanism in the city began to take shape in the late 1990s. Until then, the axioms of modernist urbanism were largely unchallenged. A new era of hybridity taking form in Seoul means that, “the uneven movement of social development, or “the coexistence of realities from radically different moments of history” is no longer embarrassing [quoted in Ryu 2004: 15]. Mom-and-pop stores can exist alongside franchised convenience stores, European restaurants next to Korean folk taverns, and traditional tearooms next to coffee houses. This hybrid coexistence of different pasts is called “the synchronism of the non-synchronous,” or the “contemporaneity of the non-contemporaneous” [15].

Old inner-city neighbourhoods, like Samcheong-dong, benefit the most from this type of post-modern hybridity where newly renovated hanok are weaved harmoniously with ultra contemporary architecture. Samcheong-dong is a neighbourhood in Jongno-gu, one of the oldest and most culturally significant districts in Seoul. It has become an important alternative cultural consumption centre as many artists and art galleries move in to take advantage of the unique cultural environment of the neighbourhood [Kim 2007: 270]. In Samcheong-dong, European restaurants are found in traditional hanok and garden settings and traditional five-course Korean meals are served in contemporary designs.


7


Figure 4. In Samcheong-dong, hybridity reconciles modernity to tradition in Seoul’s urban fabric. Renovated hanoks are weaved harmoniously with contemporary architecture. Photo taken by author, July 2008.

The revitalization of Samcheong-dong occurred within the plan to revitalize the greater area of Bukchon Village and the successful hanok renovation program. This process was initiated by a collaboration of activists, academics and Bukchon residents who petitioned the SMG in the late 1990s to stem the rapid disappearance of hanok. Not only was this group convinced of the intrinsic value of the area, but residents were also attracted to the greater potential for property value through the preservation of hanok in the midst of the IMF financial crisis. Prior to 1998, residents had wanted development restrictions to be lifted in order to benefit from skyrocketing land values and to facilitate the destruction of old houses to be replaced with modern apartments [SMG 2001: 7]. By 2006, Bukchon revitalization was declared to have achieved major successes, not only in keeping the traditional houses, but also in generating a new economy of art and craft shops, restaurants and souvenir shops as well as attracting upscale businesses to the area as is found in Samcheong-dong [Douglass 2008: 20].

Bukchon Village revitalization and other key projects restoring hallmarks of Seoul’s traditional urbanism are fuelling momentum for a new era of hybrid urbanism. For example, the Cheonggye-stream restoration project, finalized in 2007, tore down several layers of freeway covering the ancient stream that was paved over in the name of progress and development. Feeding off the success of the Bukchon Village and Cheonggye-stream restoration, SMG has approved the revitalization plan for Seochon Village to start at the beginning of 2010. Head architect of the project, Kwon Moon Sung, intends to renovate traditional homes, conserve and restore the ancient network of streets and waterways established from the Choson era. Paved waterways will be reconnected to Cheonggye-stream, restoring the hierarchical order of streams and roads established according to fengshui principles. Bukchon and Seochon Village literally translate as north and south village respectively, corresponding to their situation around Gyeongbok Palace. It is the intention of the city to seek listing on the UNESCO World Heritage List for the combined property of the Gyeongbok Palace and the Bukchon and Seochon Villages once the project is complete. Seochon Village revitalization also notably involves the construction of apartment complexes built in a traditional style [Choson Ilbo 14 May 2009].

The revitalization of historically significant neighbourhoods is once again highlighting Seoul’s traditional urbanism that was hidden in the rubble of frantic modernization. The result is a complex and hybrid landscape where modern and tradition find harmony. Architects like Doojin Hwang are involved in the challenge of adapting the hanok to modern forms and a contemporary life-style. Hwang has been involved in the renovation of many hanoks in the area and is an important figure in


8


bringing hanok back into the mainstream urban conscientiousness of the city. His approach in renovation incorporates contemporary design elements to hanok to suit the contemporary lifestyle of Seoulites, such as installing a basement where the ondol underground heating system rendered this impossible in the traditional design of hanok. He calls his approach “newtonics”, involving technological improvements in building traditional homes, such as using glass instead of clay to construct roofs [2009]. Hwang is also involved in the development of larger-scale hanok intended for everyday, secular use rather than as a palace or temple. Arguing that form and function should be fluid rather than restricting the terms in which architecture is approached, Hwang believes that Korean society should have the option to live in traditional style houses that have evolved for contemporary uses, much like a modern American single-family detached home appears very similar in form to traditional homes. Hwang’s progressive approach to tradition is an indication of the 21st century “age of synthesis” and “ambidextrous thinking” where “local and global are no longer antithetical” [Hwang 2009].

Figure 6. A sketch by Doojin Hwang illustrates the architect’s progressive traditionism [Hwang 2009].

Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) is taking a similar integrated approach and is

incorporating the cutting edge of design and technology into enhancing the natural and cultural heritage of the city. Current Seoul mayor, Oh Se Hoon, states that “culture is now economy and industry. Culture is one of our greatest assets, not just for entertainment, but also for the value it adds to our economy. The culture of Seoul where tradition and technology coexist will be a new driving force for the future” [SMG 2006: 15]. The current discourse of urban renewal in Seoul is thus engaged in a dialogue where development and culture are fused together.

3.0 NEOLIBERAL SEOUL?

In the 20th century, Korea was desperate to shake off the image of a primarily agrarian society, using Seoul as the poster-child of its rapid progress. Today, Seoul seems to have reached a stage of maturity and self-awareness. Seoul has moved beyond the development-state era and into an era of globalization, joining in the pursuit ofobal competitiveness through urban design. However, globalization has introduced a neoliberal paradigm in Seoul, causing the increasing commercialization of urban space. As culture increasingly becomes a product to be consumed in the global economy the inherent value of tradition itself is at risk.

In Seoul, ‘place branding’ has become a must. Under the banner of “Seoul: A Clean and Attractive Global City”, the city is engaging in a citywide urban renewal scheme to attract international business and tourism [SMG 2006]. While discussing the emergent ‘neoliberal city’ in Seoul, Mike Douglass explains that, “Among the components of its strategy is the now everywhere popular city marketing centred on a culture economy based on Seoul’s dynastic past and ultra modern cultural creations” [11]. Indeed, Mayor Oh Se Hoon claims a “culture-nomics” growth strategy for Seoul, “promoting growth by promoting culture” [quoted in Smith 2008: 33]. Canadian urban geographer, Deborah Leslie, is highly critical of cities eager to brand themselves as ‘creative cities’ or ‘cities of culture’; “in an era of neoliberalism and heightened inter-urban competition, metropolitan areas are engaged in a frenzied attempt to differentiate themselves, and to sell themselves as centres of culture…In such a universe, culture is reduced to décor rather than function” [404]. Seminal urban


9


theorist, David Harvey also writes of this kind of urban entrepreneurialism where cities are producing an image of grandeur, excitement and innovation, whether or not it is reality in order to promote the tourism industry and attract international investment. There are some serious social and economic problems that create a “dual city of inner city regeneration and a surrounding sea of increasing impoverishment” [1989: 16]. Through place branding, “the circus succeeds, even if the bread is lacking” [14].

To the question of substance, Mayor Oh Se Hoon remarks that, “It’s impossible to promote economic growth by creating a culture that doesn’t exist. Fortunately, Korea and Seoul have a long history, and we have a lot of cultural assets. So far, however, we haven’t been able to take advantage of these assets” [quoted in Smith 2008: 33]. In order to activate some of Seoul’s cultural assets, the digitization of the Cheonggye-stream is one of the city’s key projects in promoting Seoul as a “City of Culture, where tradition and technology coexist” [SMG 2006: 21]. With LCD touch-screen monitors along the stream to provide historical information as well as tourist information on attractions, events and shopping centres, a five meter tall electric board providing real-time stock prices and exchange rates and the connection of the area to wireless broadband internet service allowing personal use of laptop computers, the digitization of Cheonggye-stream will be a circus indeed. Also, a miniature of the shantytown that existed along the stream in the 1960s will exhibit the heritage of the Cheonggye-stream [SMG 2006: 27]. As SMG seeks to enhance the ease of cultural consumption for tourists, the digitization of the Cheonggye-stream compromises the integrity of the site’s cultural value.

What is at stake is the authenticity of the cultural landscape of the city. Douglass explains that, for the emergent neoliberal city engaging in ever-larger mega-projects, new global urban spaces designed by star architects and world famous designers link the city with global consumption [2008: 7]. Indeed, SMG’s four-year plan is packed with one large-scale development after another. For example, the 80-year-old Dongdaemun Stadium, once a 30,000-seat athletics arena and currently occupied by a flea market, will be remade into the Dongdaemun World Design Park and Plaza. International renowned architect, Zaha Hadid, won the US$ 324 million competition to lead the project due for completion in 2010 [Reid 2008: 118]. The concern is that these large mega-projects are geared towards global consumption and are not mindful of traditional culture. Although the design was recognized by the international panel of judges for embodying the unique character of the neighbourhood, many Korean architects criticize the Dongdaemun project for having no historical relevance to the area and is further displacing existing historically important sites. One Korean urban planner laments the government’s current “luxury craze” in contemporary public architecture that does not convey the heritage of the site; “the city is more interested in world design than civic identity or the restoration of historical places such as the ancient fortress at the site” [quoted in Douglass 2008: 16].

Even smaller-scale community-led developments, as opposed to top-down mega projects, seem to be facilitating the commercialization of traditional culture. Insa-dong is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in Seoul and dates back 600 years when it was a residential area for high-court officials. Today, it is a mecca for Korean art with traditional art shops, contemporary art galleries, exhibition space and traditional teahouses. Insa-dong experienced a revitalization of its own in the late 1990s when local merchants gathered together to petition for a once a week no car day along its principal street. In 2000, local merchants and non-governmental organizations also managed to convinced SMG to put a 2-year moratorium on all new construction in Insa-dong [Douglass 2008: 21]. Nevertheless, the commercialization of Insa-dong occurred, “the street began to be invaded by pseudo-cultural events such as hip-hop dancers selling Mini-Cooper automobiles on the street, Vitamin C drinks sold by platoons of young women in bathing suits, and even a staged yogurt fight with unclothed women hired by a milk company” [22]. The increasing corporate presence in Insa-dong and incidence of cheap copies of Korean art made in China is undermining the cultural value of the street. Douglass explains that, “As the differences continue to be marked by a new kind of hodge-podge of craft and corporate sponsored sales promotions, some of the more prestigious galleries that gave Insa-dong its reputation of quality in the art and crafts have moved to other locations” [22]. The commercialization of the district is eroding the authenticity of the neighbourhood with irreverent marketing schemes and cheap imitations of traditional art transforming the street into a caricature of itself.


10


It seems, however, that Insa-dong is the victim of its own success. In response to the apparent demand for these types of spaces, SMG plans to extend Insa-dong as a cultural district into a citywide cultural ‘belt’. The cultural belt will include Gyeongbok Palace, Bukchon Village and Insa-dong as a tourist corridor; as well as the revival of the city’s 2,000-year history by restoring historic sites of the Hanseong-Baekje Period and Goguryeo Dynasty [SMG 2006: 91]. Plans also include the development of more pedestrian-friendly passageways throughout the city including a pedestrian-only passageway under the Banpodaegyo Bridge between Gangbuk and Gangnam to be activated by exhibits, botanical gardens and artificial waterfalls [47]. Moreover, a portion of the 630 surviving traditional hanok in Seochon Village will be purchased by the city to be transformed into affordable studio space for artists while the project, ‘Seoul Art Space’, will turn abandoned local administrative offices into studios for artists [Choson Ilbo 14 May 2009, 9 July 2009].

As Seoul continues to open its economy to global commerce, SMG must persist in managing the tension caused by commercialization against traditional landscapes. As the city seeks to cater to a global market, the urban entrepreneurialism of the city must also have regard for and sustain the integrity of its traditional identity. Despite instances where global urban spaces have already begun to overwhelm the existing urban fabric, SMG remains proactive in the harmonious evolution of the city. The achievements of the SMG’s urban revitalization plan, of which the Cheonggye-stream restoration project is becoming the exploited poster-child, include incorporating the conservation of natural and cultural heritage and urban economic development into one inter-connected dialogue.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The process of urbanization in Seoul has not always involved the conscientious effort to respect existing urban fabric. Indeed, the preoccupations of Seoul’s major agents of urbanization in the 20th century were intent on erasing the urban legacy left by their predecessor. While each period rejected the urban character of the previous generation, each period nevertheless left a permanent mark in Seoul’s built form. Throughout colonialism, war and military dictatorship, Seoul endured one brutal transition after another to stand today as one of Asia’s greatest cities. It has matured into a self-confident age of urbanism where the past is reconciled with the future. Nevertheless, the city must continue to work at its harmonious urbanization as each generation brings on its own set of challenges.

Seoul’s unprecedented growth in the 20th century is now being met and exceeded by many cities in Asia. For those Asian cities engaging in a similar race towards modernization and industrialization, Seoul provides a model as well as a cautionary tale. This paper has sought to illustrate Seoul’s experience as an East Asian model of modernization, influenced and shaped by its unique cultural context. In an emergent ‘post’- modernist era of city building, planners are no longer confined to the simple dichotomies of the past century. The irreconcilable differences between development and culture, modernization and tradition are no longer constraining. What is important to learn from the Seoul experience is that technological advancement and the improvement of urban living do not have to equate with a notion of “Westernization”. Indeed, global and local are no longer antithetical in 21st century. As the tense glare of the international community anticipates the rapid urbanization of the continent, Asian cities should be encouraged to pursue modernization in their own cultural contexts. Despite the historical contexts of many Asian cities, they should not be expected to be fixed in the past but be allowed to progress and evolve. To be certain, the message is not to disregard traditional culture and go forth in unbridled pursuit of urbanization, but rather, it is to pursue progress and urban innovation through a clear cultural lens. Understanding and applying the lessons learned from the recent and ancient past, planners in Asia must achieve the balance between development and culture, modernity and tradition.


11


5.0 REFERENCES

1. Akagawa, N. and Sirisrisak, T., “Cultural landscapes in Asia and the Pacific: Implications of the World Heritage Convention”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2008, pp. 176-191 2. Douglass, M., “Livable cities: Neoliberal versus convivial modes of urban planning in Seoul”, The Korea Spatial Planning Review, Vol. 59, No. 12, 2008, pp. 3-36. 3. Florida, R., “Introduction to the creative class”, Creativity and the City, 2005, pp. 21-40 4. Gelézeau, V., “The street in Seoul: In search of the soul of Seoul”, Korea Journal, Summer 1997, pp. 71-83. 5. Gelézeau, V., “La modernisation de l’habitat en Corée du Sud. Usage et image des appartements de style occidental”, Annales de Géographie, Vol. 110, No. 620, 2001, pp. 405-424. 6. Gelézeau, V., “How Korea became a land of apartments", The Korea Society Podcast. 26 April 2007. http://www.koreasociety.org/arts/gallery/how_did_korea_become_a_land_of_apartments_.html referred on 20/07/2009. 7. Harvey, D., “From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism”, Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 71, No. 1, 1989, pp. 3-17. 8. Hong, S.K, Song, I.J., and Wu, J., “Fengshui theory in urban landscape planning”, Urban Ecosyst, Vol 10, 2007, pp. 221-237. 9. Hwang, D.J., “TradINNOvation: New trends in Korean contemporary architecture”, The Korea Society Podcast. 16 July 2009. http://www.koreasociety.org/arts/gallery/tradinnovation_new_trends_in_contemporary_korean_architecture.html referred on 20/07/2009. 10. Jacobs, J., The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 1961. 11. Kim, C.G., “Urban management of Seoul: Past and Present”, Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2006, http://web.mit.edu/dusp/chinaplanning/paper/Chan-Gon%20Kim%20paper.pdf referred on 17/07/2009. 12. Kim, H.H., “The creative economy and urban art clusters: locational characteristics of art galleries in Seoul”, Journal of the Korean Geographical Society, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2007, pp. 258-279. 13. Lee, J.Y., “The practice of urban renewal in Seoul, Korea: Mode, governance, and sustainability”, The 2nd International Geography Conference, Taegu, Korea, 2000, http://econgeog.misc.hit-u.ac.jp/icgg/intl_mtgs/JYLee.pdf referred on 20/07/2009. 14. Leslie, D., “Creative cities?”, Geoforum, Vol. 36, 2005, pp. 403-405. 15. Meier, R. I., “Exploring development in great Asian cities: Seoul”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1970, pp. 378-392 16. Nasser, N., “Planning for urban heritage places: Reconciling conservation, tourism and sustainable development”, Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2003, pp. 467-479. 17. Pai, H.M, “Modernism, development and the transformation of Seoul: A study of the development of Sae’oon Sang’ga and Yoido”, Culture and the City in East Asia, 1997, pp. 104-122. 18. Reid, G., “It’s all about Seoul”, Idealog, No. 17, 2008, pp. 110-119. 19. Robinson, M., “Seoul: City guide”, Lonely Planet, 2006. 20. Ryu, J. H., “Naturalization landscapes and the politics of hybridity: Gwanghwamun to Cheonggyecheon”, Korea Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2004, pp. 8-34. 21. Seoul Metropolitan Government, “Bukchon Preservation Plan”, December 2001, http://www.kahoidong.com/En/bukchonhtm4-17_e.html referred on 19/07/2009 referred on 17/07/2009. 22. Seoul Metropolitan Government, “Seoul: A clean and attractive global city”, 2006, http://english.seoul.go.kr/images/gtk/cg/inti_4yearMasterPlan.pdf referred on 17/07/2009. 23. Smith, R.M., “A young mayor pushes reform”, Newsweek, Vol. 152, No. 24, pp. 33-36. 24. “Seoul’s Seochon village slated for architectural revival”, Choson Ilbo, 14 May 2009, http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/05/14/2009051400497.html referred on 28/07/2009. 25. “Seoul turns abandoned spaces into art studios”, The Choson Ilbo, 9 July 2009, http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/07/09/2009070901541.html referred on 26/07/2009.

Apsa Paper Revision

Documents

Transcript of Apsa Paper Revision