Contents……………………….………………………………………………………...1

1. Background ………………………………………………………………………….......22. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………23. Objectives…………………………………………………………………...……………34. Urbanization and urban people’s growth………………………………………………...35. Urban policy priorities……………………………………………………………………46. Decentralization in Seoul…………………………………………………………………5 7. Infrastructure, access and needs in Seoul ………………………………………………..68. Urban planning and urban management………………………………………………….79. Urban Master Plan…………………………………………………………………….….810. Experience from the city………………………………………………………………….911. Conclusion………………………………………………………………..........................912. References ……………………………………………………………………………….10

~ 1 ~

Background

The history of Seoul probably started in 18 BC, when it was chosen to be the capital of the Baekje Kingdom. After that it has been the capital of various rulers, which all gave the city a new name. The importance of Seoul as a city really started during the Joseon Dynasty. Former General Yi Seong-gye chose Seoul to be the capital of his empire in 1392. During the next 10 years Seoul grew into a real city, with 100.000 inhabitants. In that period Seoul was a city lead by the Neo-Confucianism philosophy of the Joseon Dynasty. Buddhism and Catholicism were banned into the mountains and the countryside. Till 1910 Seoul was controlled by this feudal system of kings, aristocrats, peasants, slaves and outcasts. In 1910, the Japanese invasion took the regime of Korea and the city of Seoul. During the following 35 years Seoul was doomed under Japanese colonial rule. Palaces were destroyed and the Korean culture seemed to fade away. Korea survived and was released from Japanese rule in 1948. During the Korean war Seoul experienced warfare 4 times, only to become the main capital again in 1953. Since that moment Seoul has been growing rapidly and continuously. The expansion of Seoul symbolizes the economic progress South-Korea has made in the past 50 years. Nowadays Seoul is a highly modern city with a modern, technologically advanced society. The streets of Seoul are filled with skyscrapers, traffic and 10.3 million people. Seoul is not only the capital of South Korea, but also the city where everything is centered. Throughout the year you can experience cultural, traditional and modern events in this modern metropolis of Korea.

Introduction

Seoul, the capital of Korea. has been a central city of the nation over 600 years. since being selected as the capital by the Chosun Dynasty in 1394.Although the first local settlement was established in the Neolithic period. and the present city site was regarded as a very important site to occupy the Korean peninsula during the Three Kingdom period. Seoul did not become a central city for political, economic, social and cultural purposes until the late I4 century.During the Chosun Dynasty, Seoul changed little. Only in the late 19th century after opening to the world. did the city adopt modern technology and begin to be transformed vertically and horizontally. The built-up area expanded beyond the city walls during the Japanese occupation period, but the urbanization was not started in the modem sense. With the economic development in the late I9ó0s. The population of Seoul increased, and rapid urbanization and changes of infrastructure occurred. This remarkable transformation created many infrastructure problems affecting the everyday lives of the citizens. Therefore. The government devised and implemented various decentralization policies and programs during the last 20 years.The city government plans for a better environment for the citizens of Seoul are striving for

~ 2 ~

balanced development. This contribution examines the past and present situations in Seoul and discusses its plans for a more sustainable environment.

Objectives

To highlight the main infrastructure of Seoul The have experience how to plan the different parts of the city To expose the town policies of Seoul To have an idea the rapid industrialization of Seoul

Urbanization and urban people’s growth

In the early 1970s, the Park Chung Hee government launched the Saemaul undong (New Community Movement) as a rural reconstruction and self-help movement to improve economic conditions in the villages, close the wide gap in income between rural and urban areas, and stem urban migration--as well as to build a political base. Despite a huge amount of government sponsored publicity, especially during the Park era, it was not clear by the late 1980s that the Saemaul undong had achieved its objectives. By that time many, if not most, farming and fishing villages consisted of older persons; relatively few able-bodied men and women remained to work in the fields or to fish. This trend was apparent in government statistics for the 1986-87 period: the proportion of people fifty years old or older living in farming communities grew from 28.7 percent in 1986 to 30.6 percent in 1987, while the number of people in their twenties living in farming communities declined from 11.3 percent to 10.8 percent. The nationwide percentages for people fifty years old or older and in their twenties were, in 1986, 14.9 percent and 20.2 percent, respectively .In 1985 the largest cities were Seoul (9,645,932 inhabitants), Pusan (3,516,807), Taegu (2,030,672), Inch'on (1,387,491), Kwangju (906,129), and Taejon (866,695). According to government statistics, the population of Seoul, one of the world's largest cities, surpassed 10 million people in late 1988. Seoul's average annual population growth rate during the late 1980s was more than 3 percent. Two-thirds of this growth was attributable to migration rather than to natural increase. Surveys revealed that "new employment or seeking a new job," "job transfer," and "business" were major reasons given by new immigrants for coming to the capital. Other factors cited by immigrants included "education" and "a more convenient area to live."

To alleviate overcrowding in Seoul's downtown area, the city government drew up a master plan in the mid-1980s that envisioned the development of four "core zones" by 2000: the original downtown area, Yongdongp'o-Yoido, Yongdong, and Ch'amsil. Satellite towns also would be established or expanded. In the late 1980s, statistics revealed that the daytime or commuter population of downtown Seoul was as much as six times the officially registered population. If the master plan is successful, many commuters will travel to work in a core area nearer their homes, and the downtown area's daytime population will decrease. Many government ministries

~ 3 ~

have been moved out of Seoul, and the army, navy, and air force headquarters have been relocated to Taejon.

In 1985 the population of Seoul constituted 23.8 percent of the national total. Provincial cities, however, experienced equal and, in many cases, greater expansion than the capital. Growth was particularly spectacular in the southeastern coastal region, which encompasses the port cities of Pusan, Masan, Yosu, Chinhae, Ulsan, and P'ohang. Census figures show that Ulsan's population increased eighteenfold, growing from 30,000 to 551,300 inhabitants between 1960 and 1985. With the exception of Yosu, all of these cities are in South Kyongsang Province, a region that has been an especially favored recipient of government development projects. By comparison, the population of Kwangju, capital of South Cholla Province, increased less than threefold between 1960 and 1985, growing from 315,000 to 906,129 inhabitants.

Rapid urban growth has brought familiar problems to developed and developing countries alike. The construction of large numbers of high-rise apartment complexes in Seoul and other large cities alleviated housing shortages to some extent. But it also imposed hardship on the tens of thousands of people who were obliged to relocate from their old neighborhoods because they could not afford the rents in the new buildings. In the late 1980s, squatter areas consisting of one-story shacks still existed in some parts of Seoul. Housing for all but the wealthiest was generally cramped. The concentration of factories in urban areas, the rapid growth of motorized traffic, and the widespread use of coal for heating during the severe winter months have caused dangerous levels of air and water pollution. Although environmental awareness is increasing, a polluted environment will adversely affect the quality of life in the cities for some time to come.

Urban policy priorities

The Seoul Metropolitan Area, with 21.5 million people, is one of the largest metropolitan regions in the world, yet according to ‘world city formation’ criteria it stands much lower in global city ranking than its size might suggest (Cal and Sit, 2004), being ranked seventeenth.

Given the importance of the South Korean economy. A plausible argument is that Seoul needs to rise higher among world cities, and any relocation of the capital would undermine this valuable objective.

Seoul has dominated both the South Korean national urban hierarchy and its economy. For example, 95 per cent of the largest 100 firms have their headquarters there. About four-fifths of the rural urban migrants since 1970 have gravitated to the Seoul region. In a few respects, however, its dominance was whittled away by the preoccupation during President Roh Moo-Hyun’s administration with ‘balanced national development’ and the earlier decentralization of industrial establishments and educational facilities in the l970s and 1980s. Again prompted by government policies. In the I 990s the population of the City of Seoul declined for the first tune to 9,9 million, although the Seoul Metropolitan Area’s population continued to increase. Since

~ 4 ~

1971 the physical expansion of Seoul, and possibly a further concentration of population, has been constrained by the tight Greenbelt controls. In recent years there have been some slight relaxations in Greenbelt policies, but their implications for the distribution of population. Employment and political power remain unclear. One of the major objectives of the Second Comprehensive Capital Region Management Plan (1997—2011) was to promote balanced national development’, and as a consequence reduce spatial concentration in the Seoul Metropolitan Area. A related goal was to promote congestion relief.

The lack of success in early years of the CCRMP may have been one factor behind the much more ambitious plan to relocate the national capital announced in 2004. The problem with this strategy. Even if it had been successful, is that it would have undermined South Korea’s globalization goals that demand raising the profile of Seoul on the world stage.

The success of Seoul is too well-known to require much of a replay here. Whatever one might think of President Park Chung-Hee’s dictatorial regime. This began in 1961 and ended with his assassination in 1979. he was primarily responsible for the development of the export-based industrialization strategy that benefited Seoul as a result of the Miracle of the han River’ (Kim, 2007). Subsequently, there was some erosion as a result of decentralization policies, but these were insufficient to prevent the continued expansion of the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Seoul remains not only the national capital but also the economic dynamo of South Korea.

This is reinforced by an impressive array of social and cultural amenities that would be impossible for an alternative capital to match. In addition, retaining the capital in Seoul exposes South Korean society to the street based political pressures of demonstrations and protests that are essential to a functioning and responsive democracy: a good example, regardless of the dubious scientific merit of the case. is the demonstrations against US beef imports.

Decentralization in Seoul

The decentralization reform in Korea has had a long process since the 1990s, and it is still anon going process to meet its final goal, which all local governments are able to enjoy their local autonomy and local democracy not only in terms of politics, but also in terms of economy. In fact, local autonomy and local democracy have been developed substantially particularly since the year 1995 with the local election compared to the authoritarian governments periods. After initiating the local election, the central government had to rebuild its vertical relationship with the local governments although the central government could exercise its decision making power through economic incentives and legal empowerment compared to the top-down one way policies carried out by the authoritarian governments. As a result, the vertical relationships between the central and local governments have become more sophisticated and process oriented than before due to various new laws particularly Special Law on Decentralization Promotion (SLDP) in 2004. Through the laws for local autonomy and local democracy, the local governments gained some functions to deal with their own interests such as local economic

~ 5 ~

development strategy, local planning etc. However, they are still dependent on the central government substantially. Therefore, the vertical relationship between the central and local governments has become moderate compared to under the authoritarian government period, but still exists to high extent. Regarding the horizontal relationships between local governments as well as local governments and civic activist groups have been more integrated and cooperative since the local election because they have common goal to maximize local autonomy and local democracy. First of all, the horizontal relationship between the local governments is cooperative for their common goal on the one hand and competitive with one another for their economic development strategy on the other hand. By contrast, the relationship between the local governments and civic activist groups is rather cooperative and complementary for their common goal. Although the decentralization process has been continued nearly last two decades, the general view of public opinion on the political democracy has not been improved. Given the Asian Barometer Survey, popular support for democracy and in particular satisfaction with existing institutions has declined substantially from 1996 to 2006. It revealed that the preference for democracy over its alternatives decreased from 65 percent in 1996 to 43percent in 2006. Satisfaction with democracy also declined from 55 percent to 48 percent during the same period. More dramatic and serious decline took place in the trust in existing democratic institutions; trust in executive fell from 62 percent in 1996 to 26 percent in 2006,trust in the legislature from 49 percent to 7 percent, and trust in court from 70 percent to 27percent during the same period. It indicates that Korean democracy is still working, but many citizens are not satisfied with their democratic system despite the decentralization reform. The reason for it may be that people’s capability to understand democracy and implement it has been improved continuously since the decentralization process, while democratic institutions have halt their democratization process. Therefore, such a gap exists as a result.(BTI, 2012; Asian Barometer Survey, 2006).

Infrastructure, access and needs in Seoul

The construction sector is showing some positive signs of recovery with local companies reporting an increase in new orders, but despite this we do not expect a significant improvement in South Korea's construction real growth in 2015. This is primarily due to the country's weak macro fundamentals and poor export outlook that will affect residential and non-residential buildings respectively. On the other hand, greater potential for an increase in public infrastructure opportunities has boosted the outlook for infrastructure over the near term. Some notable factors that affected infrastructure development in recent quarters were:

As expected, South Korea's construction sector experienced a slowdown throughout 2014. Latest data from the Bank of Korea (BoK) showed that in seasonally adjusted terms, the construction industry grew by 0.7% year-on-year (y-o-y) in Q314, a seven-quarter low. Despite the muted outlook, we note that our construction growth forecast for 2014 is still significantly higher than the historical ten-year average (the sector contracted by an average of 0.26% per annum between 2004 and 2013 [based on 2010 prices]). This

~ 6 ~

is because monetary conditions in South Korea remain relatively conducive for construction activity. To be sure, the BoK cut the benchmark base rate twice by a collective 50 basis points to 2.0% in H214. With economic momentum unlikely to pick up pace quickly, we expect monetary conditions to remain fairly accommodative.

According to the South Korean statistics office new construction orders in 2014 increased 15.3%, with the majority of this growth coming from private sector and residential building activities which accounted for 61% of total new orders.

Urban planning and urban management

Structure of urban planning in Seoul (South Korea) is a three-tiered system. The top level is the

Urban Master Plan which outlines the direction of long-term growth and future image of the city; the mid-level is the Urban Management Plan, which provides the urban plan with binding powers and concrete details; the bottom-level of urban planning is the Urban Implementation Plan which executes the plans.

Urban Master Plan

The 2020 Seoul Master Plan is a comprehensive plan mat outlines the basic spatial structure and long-term development direction of Seoul. It is a guideline for the Urban Management Plan. The 2020 Seoul Master Plan (established in 2005) deals with objectives and strategies; sub-regional development; land use; reconstruction and redevelopment; housing supply; improvement of traffic and material distribution system; development of information and communication services; development and promotion of economy, industry, society, and culture; environmental conservation and management; parks, landscape, and green space; disaster prevention and safety; and financing necessary for implementation.

The Urban Master Plan is established by the Mayor of Seoul, but its approval is determined by the central government (i.e. Ministry of Land, Transportation, and Maritime Affairs). The Urban Master Plan is drawn up first in cooperation with relevant planning institutions and then changed and complemented following public hearings and discussions with the Seoul City Council. The final draft of the master plan is confirmed through the review by the Permanent Committee for Urban Planning and consultation with the Urban Planning Committee of Seoul. The Mayor of Seoul then submits the final draft to the Minister of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs. After discussion with heads of related central authorities and consultation with special institutions, the Minister of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs approves the Seoul Master Plan through the resolution of the Central Urban Planning Committee. The approved plan is returned to the Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the procedure for setting up the plan is completed after Mayor of Seoul offers it for public announcement.

~ 7 ~

To respect the autonomy of local government, however the urban master plan will be approved by local government from August. 7. 2009. The urban master plan will determined through discussing with the central government and urban planning committee of Seoul.

Urban Management Plan

To develop, maintain, and preserve Seoul, the Urban Management Plan oversees zoning management; installation, maintenance and improvement of urban planning facilities; urban development or redevelopment projects; and designation or changing of detailed district plans.

While the 2020 Seoul Master Plan is objective-oriented, the Urban Management Plan is, in contrast, measure-oriented. The purpose of the Urban Management Plan is to provide a guidance for implementation plans and to regulate building construction activities.

The procedure for establishing the Urban Management Plan differs based on who initiates the plans. The draft of the Urban Management Plan worked out under the authority of a borough chief is sent, after the public hearings and the consultation from the Borough Urban Planning Committee, for approval to the Mayor of Seoul, it has been reviewed by the Permanent Committee of Urban Planning and consulted with the Urban Planning Committee of Seoul. The approved Urban Management Plan is returned to the borough chief, and the borough chief announces it.

Experience from the city

Rapid urbanization in Korea has been largely driven by its phenomenal economic growth in the past four decades. Urban development pressure in the Seoul metropolitan region has been high due to continued inward migration to the area. Despite government intervention in urban housing and land markets, undesirable development patterns occurred on the fringe of Seoul metropolitan region. The example of Yongin city, located south of Seoul metropolitan region clearly illustrates this.

After the experience of ‘reckless’ development in Yongin, the professional community as well as the government came to recognize that urban development must be predicated on careful planning. This could imply more intervention by the government. Planning may help to minimize the negative externalities arising from urban sprawl. The question remains, however, whether planning should facilitate market functions or work for collective interest.

The underlying assumption in Korea’s urban policy is that government intervention is necessary to correct market failures. This assumption holds true when there is a market.

However, it is hard to say whether land and housing markets exist in Korea. Even those who claim the existence of this market have to admit the distortion caused by government intervention. The ‘distorted’ market tends to invite more government intervention, which again

~ 8 ~

produces complicated and duplicating regulations. Those who believe in the free market would say that more intervention brings more government failures.

Another key aspect of policies dealing with urban sprawl is the speed and scale of urban growth, that is, population and industrial dynamics. When there is high-speed urban growth, like in Korea in the 1970s and 1980s or China’s urban areas now, public planning and policies can never catch up with reality. It is inevitable to let the private sector (or market) play a role in urban development. Public authorities cannot contain urban growth. All they can do is guide ur ban development in certain desirable ways. In this regard, simple and transparent rules are necessary to guide the private sector toward sustainable urban development.

A few more specific lessons from Korea’s experience are the following:

1) Zoning regulations, in whatever form they take, should contain sufficiently -detailed guidelines to avoid rent-seeking activities. Synchronization of infrastructure provision with housing development is essential to avoid reckless development.

2) Housing development should be coordinated with industrial development so as to reduce unnecessary commuting trips to the core city.

3) Environmental aspects should be considered in region-wide planning so that environmental sustainability can be achieved at the region-wide level.

4) More coordination is required at both the local and central levels to prevent dysfunctional development in the urban fringe areas.

5) Simplification and integration of land use laws and regulations is essential for.

Conclusion

Seoul is a global city rather as well as the capital of Korea and has undergone a profound transformation since the late 19th century. Now ideas are needed to transcend national borders and deliver strategies to cope with globalization. Seoul must develop a network of airport, seaport and high-speed trains befitting the age of the borderless society and must reinforce its international business environment and function. Seoul citizens should equip themselves with new pattern of behaviors and a civic consciousness. Urban management reform and the renovation of urban structure are also needed. Answers to these mandates must be sought from questions as to what Seoul needs and what it should be like in the future,

Whether Seoul is to play a leading role in the 21” century largely depends on our imagination, determination and endeavors.

The spatial structure plan of Seoul and its surrounding areas was suggested to solve serious problems. Transportation and environment of the region and establish its cohesive and efficient

~ 9 ~

spatial structure. The planning proposal should include construction of an efficient transportation system and economic and housing development plans to strengthen socio-economic functional linkages of the region, re realize multi-centric spatial structure, relieve transportation congestion and enhance the urban living environment.

References

Bank of Korea (1997). Monthly Bulletin (September). Seoul. Korea (in Korean).

Breheny. M. J. (cd.) (1992). Sustainable Development and Urban Form. London. Pion Limited.

Brotchie. John. Mike Batty. Ed Blakely. Peter Hall and Peter Newton (eds.) (1995). (‘ilies in competition. Melbourne. Longman H ouse.

Cervero. Robert (1989). “Jobs-Housing Balancing and Regional Mobility.” A inerican Planning A ssociation Journal 55(2).

Choe. Sang.Chuel (1990). ‘Growth management of mega-cities.” Journal of En vironm entai Studies 27, Seoul National University.

Chung. l-L S. and D. S. Lee (eds.) (1996). Globali:ation and Housing Industry. Seoul. Korea 1-lousing Institute.

Downs. Anthony (1992). Stuck ¡n Traffic. Washington D.C.. The Brookings Institution.

Economic Planning Board (1980. 1985 and 1995). Major Statistics of Korean Econo,,,v. Seoul. Korea (in Korean).

Economic Planning Board (1960. 1966. 1970. 1975. 1980. 1985. 1990 and 1995). Population and Housing census. Seoul. Korea (in Korean).

Economic Planning Board (1973. 1978. 1983. 1988 and 1993). Mining and Manufacturing Census. Seoul. Korea (in Korean).

Economic Planning Board (1981. 1986. 1991 and 1996). Comprehensive Survey of Indust ries. Seoul. Korea (in Korean).

~ 10 ~