(Re) Constructing a World City: Urbicide in Global Korea

Abstract

This paper considers the relationship between Seoul's growing status as a world city and the practices of urban destruction and development which are being used to construct it as a world city in the age of neoliberal globalisation. The urbicide approach is often used to explain the reasons for urban destruction and the cultural and social implications of urban restructuring. The paper questions the novelty and substantive nature of the South Korean government's soft-power ‘global Korea’ rhetoric of Seoul as a world city of cultural diversity. The paper uses the South Korean case to show how urbicide as a western concept can be developed within non-western urban processes, and identifies conceptual limits and how these limits might be overcome.

Este artículo considera la relación entre el estado creciente de Seúl como una ciudad mundial y las prácticas de destrucción y desarrollo urbano que se han utilizado para construir a Seúl como una ciudad mundial en la era de la globalización neoliberal. El enfoque de urbicidio se usa frecuentemente para explicar las razones por la destrucción urbana y las implicaciones culturales y sociales de la reestructuración urbana. El artículo cuestiona la novedad y naturaleza substantiva del poder blando del gobierno de Corea del Sur, sobre la retórica de ‘Corea global’ de Seúl como una ciudad mundial de diversidad cultural. El artículo usa el caso de Corea del Sur para mostrar cómo el ubicidio como un concepto de occidente puede desarrollarse dentro de procesos urbanos no occidentales, e identifica límites conceptuales y cómo esos límites pueden sobreponerse.

本文考察首尔作为世界都市日益增长的地位同在新自由主义的全球化时代为把首尔建设为世界都市而带来的都市破坏、开发之行为之间的关系。都市自我毁灭方式 (urbicide approach）一词 经常被用来解释都市大破坏的原因，以及都市重组的社会和文化影响。本文质疑南韩政府把首尔打造为具有文化多样性的世界城市“全球的首尔”这一软实力之奇思异想及其实质。本文运用南韩的案例以图说明，作为一个西方概念的都市自我毁灭如何能够在（南韩这样的）非西方的都市化进程中再现，并试图探讨概念上的局限，以及如何克服这些局限。

تتناول هذه الدراسة العلاقة بين المكانة المتنامية لمدينة سول باعتبارها مدينة عالمية وممارسات التدمير والتنمية في المناطق الحضرية، والتي تُستخدم لإعادة تشكيل سول باعتبارها مدينة عالمية في عصر العولمة النيوليبرالية. وكثيراً ما يُستخدم منهج العنف ضد المدينة لتوضيح أسباب التدمير في المناطق الحضرية وما تنطوي عليه عملية إعادة تشكيل المناطق الحضرية من آثار ثقافية واجتماعية. وتثير الدراسة الحالية تساؤلات حول مدى جدة وموضوعية ما تردده حكومة كوريا الجنوبية من مقولات عن مدينة سول باعتبارها مدينة عالمية تتسم بالتنوع الثقافي، وذلك من منطلق فكرة "كوريا العالمية" ذات القوة الناعمة. وتستخدم الدراسة حالة كوريا الجنوبية لكي تبين كيف يمكن تطوير مفهوم العنف ضد المدينة، كمفهوم غربي، في عمليات حضرية غير غربية، كما تطرح بعض حدود المفاهيم وتوضح كيفية التغلب على هذه الحدود.

이 글은 점증하는 세계 도시로서의 서울의 지위와 신자유주의 세계화 시대에 서울을 세계 도시로서 만들기 위하여 사용되는 도시 파괴와 개발 행위와의 관계를 다룬다. 도시살해(urbicide) 접근은 도시 파괴의 이유와 도시 재개발의 문화적 사회적 함의를 설명하기 위해 자주 사용되었다. 이 글은 서울을 문화적 다양성이 있는 세계도시라는 한국 정부의 소프트 파워 ‘글로벌 코리아’ 수사의 새로움과 실질적인 성격에 의문을 제기한다. 이 글은 서구적인 개념인 도시살해가 비서구 사회의 도시 과정에서 발달할 수 있는지를 보여주기 위하여 그리고 개념적 한계를 찾아내고 그 한계가 어떻게 극복될 수 있는지를 보여주기 위해 한국 사례를 이용한다

В работе рассматривается взаимосвязь между растущим статусом Сеула как города мира и методами городского уничтожения и развития, которые используются для построения Сеула как мирового города в эпоху неолиберальной глобализации. “Urbicide” подход часто используется, чтобы объяснить причины городского разрушения, культурные и социальные последствия городской реструктуризации. Статья подвергает сомнению новизну и независимую природу “мягкой силы” “Глобальной Кореи”, исповедуемой южнокорейским правительством, как и Сеула как города мирового культурного многообразия. Статья использует южнокорейский случай, чтобы показать, что “urbicide” как западная концепция может быть развита в рамках не-западных городских процессов, а так же определяет концептуальные ограничения и как эти ограничения могут быть преодолены.

Keywords:

• urbicide
• modernisation
• Korea
• neoliberalism
• power

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the new Faculty Research Fund at Ajou University, South Korea. My thanks also to the referees of Globalizations for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Notes

This was the catchword of Seoul Mayor Gop (1998–2003) in seeking to cut government inefficiency and increase accountability by decentralisation and citizen participation. The Mayor promoted ‘Saturday’ consultations (Jong, 2003). There have been violent resistances to urbicide, such as the Yongsan protests of 2009, where ‘protestors illegally occupied building rooftops to prevent Seoul City's urban redevelopment project’ in which ‘families were evicted from rental houses which were later demolished’. See The Korea Times, 11th November 2011.

Chaebols were regarded as lacking in productivity and inefficient due to their asset ‘devouring’ of innovative medium firms or small sized ‘mom-and-pop’ businesses whilst relying on the ‘state’ for continued debt servicing under the mantra that the Chaebols were ‘too big to fail’ in Korea Inc.

See ‘Mayors to Discuss Urban Development Through Design in Seoul’, The Korea Times, 22 February 2010; ‘Indulge in Design City Seoul’, The Korea Times, 11 November 2011.

For instance, Seoul is often referred to as ‘The Republic of Seoul’.

See ‘Korean Economy Undergoes Balkanisation’, The Korea Times, 17 February 2011. The article argues that despite continued Chaebol growth, small businesses are still in financial trouble. Critics of the Chaebols would argue that small businesses do well in spite of Chaebol growth which stifles local small business development as ‘an octopus with tentacles’ (Kwon, 2004). Chaebols have different institutional cultures (Samsung emphasises Weberian rational cause–effect, whilst Hyundai emphasises spontaneous and ‘manufactured crisis’ for improving creativity), and this impacts on economic performance (Rowly and Bae, 2004).

Again, what is the criteria of ‘possibility’, what factors and which agents make these encounters more or less possible, and when and how?

Foreigners living in communitarian states often want to ‘assimilate’ and lose their differences in order to survive basic culture shock and to feel included, even if this means ‘giving up’ difference as a basic survival strategy.

In Confucian states such as South Korea, the monitoring of code of dress, behaviour and even nuances of language is an everyday occurrence in public spaces defined through ethnic homogeneity.

See ‘Seoul's Retro Neighbourhood’, The Korea Times, 14 March 2011.

See ‘Gangnam Exhibit Offers More than Urban History’, The Korea Times, 15 January 2011.

See ‘Development in Southern Seoul’, The Korea Times, 17 February 2011.

As Hyundai Development Company Engineering and Construction CEO Choong Hong Cho explained, a cultural insight into architecture is the defining factor in modern construction. One new example of this philosophy is the development at Jinju where 1813 units were built at Pyeonggyeo, known as AMCO Town or ‘The Prague’, in 2009—see http://www.amco.co.kr. Ironically, Chaebols are suggesting that grand plans would be better set out to relocate projects and reinforce ‘fengshui’ as Korean tradition.

‘Looser Real Estate Policies Unveiled’ The JoongAng Daily, 8 December 2011, reported that with a stagnant housing market there is a move to relax these rules and even encourage speculation, as no one is buying homes due to fears of price depreciation. As a result there are more rent seekers and ‘jeonse’ deposits have gone up; due to the low interest, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs is aiming to revive housing market through policies to eliminate the laws on anti-speculation zoning in Seocho, Gangnam, and Songpa. Here, zoning was ‘designed to prevent sales of apartments or buildings scheduled for redevelopment and renewal’. However, the new bill also allows owners to sell their homes despite renewal planning, to get the housing market moving.

See ‘City Centre Gets New Skyline’, The JoongAng Daily, 20 June 2011. In Seoul, office space was recorded at 9% unused. However construction continues as new towers representing modernisation in the CBD near the new Chonggye Stream (redeveloped by Hyundai) and near Tapkol Park now include the Ferrum Tower, 101 Pine Avenue, the Signature Tower (Eujiro) and the State Tower near Namsan. There has been widespread destruction of narrow streets in an aim to make north Seoul, near the CBD, appear similar to the high rise and wide boulevards of south Seoul, such as Teheran Street.

See ‘Incheon Festival to Attract 7 Million Visitors’, The Korea Times, 6 August 2009.

One such project is Gwanghwamun Plaza, described as a ‘third-rate amusement park’. The project is regarded as an ill-conceived Baudrillard-esque simulacrum of Korean tradition as cultural diversity but separate from the ‘real world’ of Seoul. The plaza was intentionally constructed as a public space for the community and to encourage neighbourhood ‘encounters’ but critics have wondered what the real objective of this plaza is: a place to relax, a children's playground, a history education for Seoulites and/or foreigners? As critics have opined, Seoul City Council ‘has been busy demolishing old back alleys and residential areas to make way for new businesses and apartments’. Such projects have also ‘bulldozed cultural assets’ and old traditional alleyways (pimatagol) to create the ‘appearance’ of a sanitised and official version of Korean tradition. See ‘Gwanghwamun Plaza Blues’, The Korea Times, 14 October 2011.

See ‘Community Building in Korea’ The Korea Times, 5 December 2011.

As Huntington (1996) notes, it is necessary not to assume that westernisation necessarily means modernisation or that capitalism necessarily means industrialisation.

See ‘Design is Everything’, The Korea Times, 27 February 2010.

See ‘Dynamic Korea’, CNN, 10 August 2011, http://www.dynamic-korea.com/

‘Design, Diversity, try to Globalize Seoul’, The Korea Times, 11th March 2009

See ‘Tackling Low Birth Rate requires Shift in Thinking’, The Chosun Ilbo, 27 February 2009; OECD Labour Productivity 2010, http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL

See ‘Design, Diversity, try to Globalize Seoul’ The Korea Times, 11 March 2009.

See ‘Korea Needs to Do More to Empower Foreigners’, The Chosun Ilbo, 8 October 2009.

See ‘The Debate over Hanok's Heating Up’, The JoongAng Daily, 10 November 2009.

Executive Vice President of Hyundai Engineering and Construction Young Nam Lee hailed this project as a new paradigm in ‘Cheonggyeong; Restoration and Urban Development’ (2003) – see http://management.kochi.tech.ac.jp,

The author recently read a placard outside a building in Seoul with these terms, which obviously have strong connotations with discrimination and exclusion, and yet are heralded in Korea as ‘welcoming’ and as deference to foreigners.

One recent example was advertised in the conservative English JoongAng Daily, which had an advert for Hillside Accommodation tailored as ‘an Exclusive Residence for Foreigners in Seoul’ and as ‘an exclusive new gated community,’ (see JoongAng Daily, 13 February, p. 2). This indicates a neoliberal securitisation of foreigners as a state-led separation is created between Korean Seoul and a ‘foreigners-only’ Seoul.

The 2001 government-backed Restoration Project poured money into the Bukchon region. Protests argued that this was a way of sprucing up the area for private real estate companies. See http://www.kahal-dong.com and KBS World Radio Seoul, 1 October 2010.

See ‘Bukchon Area to be Made Car Free’, The JoongAng Daily, 7 September 2010.