Architectural research

Architectural Institute of Korea (대한건축학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Flexible Zoning and Mixed Use in Seoul, Korea Planning Implications of Seoul's Zoning Model

  • Kim, Jeeyeop (Department of Architecture, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Potter, Cuz (Division of International Studies, Korea University) ;
  • Cho, A-ra (Department of Convergence for Future City, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • Received : 2020.11.02
  • Accepted : 2020.12.04
  • Published : 2020.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Zoning has long been criticized for its negative effects and has been taken for granted that zoning works as a hurdle to urban diversity. Responses in the US have emphasized more fine-grained zoning approaches that plan mixed use. This paper introduces and evaluates Seoul's zoning system as a possible alternative. While US zoning regulations have relied on distinguishing ever larger numbers of land use zoning categories, Seoul has opted to integrate new land uses into existing classifications, allowing for greater flexibility of use in each zone. Using municipal building records to evaluate land use in three mid-density residential districts, this paper demonstrates that Seoul's flexible zoning is capable of producing diverse mixed use neighborhoods. It then highlights the potential downside of this approach, showing that flexibility allows for the commercialization and sectoral gentrification of residential districts. It concludes by suggesting that a combination of flexible zones and more fine-grained plans would capture the advantages of both US and Korean planning.

Keywords

References

  1. Benevolo, L. (1967). The Origins of Modern Town Plan. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  2. NYC Department of City Planning, Zoning Handbook, 2011 Edition
  3. Seoul Metropolitan Government (2014). 2030 Seoul Plan,
  4. Fainstein, S. (2010). The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  5. Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 68, 71-84, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208977192
  6. Hall, P. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  7. Hirt, S. (2016). Rooting out mixed use: Revisiting the original rationales. Land Use Policy 50(2016) 134-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.009
  8. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
  9. Lim, H.J., Kim, J.Y.,Potter, C., & Bae, W.K. (2013). Urban Regeneration and Gentrification: Land Use Impacts of the Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project on the Seoul's Central Business District. Habitat International, Habitat International, 39 (1): 192200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.12.004.
  10. Potter, C., & Danielle L. (2020). Gentrification Or? Injustice in Large-Scale Residential Projects in Hanoi. Urban Studies, Urban Studies, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020949035.
  11. Reynard, P. (2002). Public order and privilege: eighteenth-century French roots of environmental regulation. Technol. Cult. 43(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2002.0037
  12. Talen, E. (2012). Zoning and Diversity in Historical Perspective. Journal of Planning History. 11(4) 330-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538513212444566
  13. Talen, E.,Anselin, L., &et. al, (2016). Looking for logic: The zoning-land use mismatch. Landscape and Urban Planning 152(2016) 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.002
  14. Williams, F. (1914). Building Regulation by Districts: The Lesson of Berlin. National Housing Association Publications, New York.
  15. Korean Statistical Information Service, http://kosis.kr/eng/index/index.do (accessed on 12 02 2019).