CINA

본문

Today's (bourgeois) Korea Herald(KH) published following reader's letter (related to it's article "Seoul's redevelopment dilemma"):

I lived in Seoul from 2003 to 2007. In the beginning, the city including my residential area in Hannam-dong still had many nice corners to live. Cozy neighborhoods, small private businesses and eateries, low-rise housing districts with gardens, great views of the neighboring mountains and rivers - like cities in advanced countries.

In the case of housing projects, I would better call it reckless destruction of what the local people have developed over decades. On the Gangbuk side, one could call it the "Gangnamification" process, turning good old Seoul into a faceless concrete jungle. The result: Too-high buildings, too narrow, more steel and asphalt, more people, more traffic, and less space, less green, less sunshine, less free views. Exactly the opposite of what city planners in advanced and emerging countries are currently doing.

In advanced democracies it is almost impossible to kick residents or small businesses out of their place, simply because the city mayor and landowners like to have "redevelopment" right on their land. Before I moved to Korea, I believed this could only be practiced in places like China.

And for the low-income people in old, run-down districts: Why not give them some money as an incentive to renovate and upgrade their existing buildings? This is what we call "redevelopment" in European cities, and what Seoul did until 2005 in a few small-scale campaigns. Much less planning, bargaining, painful arguing and time would be needed, much less concrete would be wasted.

My experience: Seoul has no lack of apartments. It has too many people. Far too many. It is mercilessly overcrowded. World class cities in advanced countries have stable populations, mostly less than a million. And their population density is much less than that of Seoul and Calcutta. The capital of my home country, Berlin, is the size of Seoul, but only has 3.4 million inhabitants. And so it will remain.

Another example: The most attractive global city in the world, according to annual surveys with managers and diplomats, is Geneva, Switzerland. Under 200,000 people only. No matter if the whole world would like to live there - locals would never allow destruction of their old quarters and lush parks only to turn them into high rise development zones. They want to keep it first in world style and top in class. Whoever wants to move in, has to pay the price - that's the market principle.

There is a right to housing, as professor Kim states. But there is no fundamental right for all Koreans to live in Seoul. Korea is an empty country. Only the space of Seoul and some satellite cities is fully occupied. There should be a general ban on new apartment construction.

http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2010/01/27/201001270050.asp

Meanwhile KH published today it's last piece (by M. Lamers and H. Chang) on the "redevelopment" issue in the S.K. capital:
☞ Erasing the past to build the future