[The Editors' Verdict] Intellectually Diligent

Professor Kyung-Hoon Lee, Department of Architecture, Kookmin University

There was an announcement from the authorities about converting downtown hotels, vacant offices, and commercial spaces into residential areas. The opposition party disparaged this as "chicken coop housing" and "goshiwon" (small, cheap rooms), while the ruling party flinched at the criticism. Since the only excuse was that it was a very small amount, it did not seem very confident. The situation exploded with the ruling party's Jin Sun-mi's remark that "we must abandon the apartment illusion." Comments and the opposition party accused her of being an unrealistic politician. Insulting mockery such as "intellectually lazy" even appeared. It was harsh for a basic piece of advice that we should consider various housing types like multi-family housing instead of insisting only on apartments.

Watching the controversy, I reconsider urban housing. There is an old saying, "You cannot have good mountains, good water, and a good pavilion all at once." It was used to mean that no one is perfect. If we compare this to a city, the mountains and water refer to the natural environment, and the pavilion can be considered the artificial residential environment. In a similar context, American architect Professor Michael Benedikt said that all cultures, East and West alike, have two types of utopias. A familiar example is the Christian Eden and Heaven. Eden, given regardless of human will, is organic and a state before differentiation. It is the realm of purity and wisdom. On the other hand, Heaven is geometric, artificial, and the realm of reason and knowledge. According to the Bible, humans were expelled from Eden but do not seek to return there. Instead, they aim for Heaven. The relationship between the two is represented by the relative and heterogeneous spaces of nature and city. In other words, if Eden is the utopia of "good mountains and good water," Heaven is the artificial urban space of "good pavilion." For reference, the English expression for Heaven is "Heavenly City." There is no superiority between the two, only difference.

However, Seoul apartments aim for the impossible desire of having good mountains, good water, and a good pavilion all at once. There must be a garden full of trees, and the adjacent buildings should be sufficiently spaced apart. A fence must surround the area to block outsiders' access, and the parking lot should be spacious enough to accommodate at least one car per household. Added to this are the conditions of a good pavilion: good transportation, good school districts, and proximity to shopping and hospitals. It is a kind of Eden, an impossible form combining the utopia with urban conveniences. Consumers, suppliers, real estate experts, and even policy authorities do not stray far from this ideal urban housing image. Therefore, even if a multi-family house has three rooms and excellent finishing materials, it cannot become a utopia. Converting hotel rooms into residences is even more unimaginable and unacceptable.

The directions of real estate policies are broadly twofold: new towns and downtown regeneration. New towns mean building cities that satisfy utopian desires tens of kilometers away from downtown. Then, tens of trillions of won are spent on constructing transportation networks. This is a severe waste of resources and inevitably results in car-centered, inhuman residential spaces. There are also environmental degradation issues, and given the country's entry into a population decline phase, there are serious doubts about sustainability. The damage has been sufficiently proven in other advanced countries.

Downtown regeneration seems to be a kind of psychological victory. In other words, it is an inevitable and correct direction but is being imposed in an enlightening manner. Persuasion is possible only if there is a genuine model of downtown housing. We should start by changing the public supply of downtown housing. To do this, first, provide the necessary infrastructure for daily life in each neighborhood. The budget for building tens of kilometers of subway lines would be sufficient. Then, architecture suitable for the city is needed. Outdated design conditions and laws, such as requiring all units to face south, spacing buildings away from the street, or forcibly planting trees, must be boldly discarded. Let's create architecture and neighborhoods that can show the vitality of the street, communication, and the joy of walking instead of greenery, south-facing units, and cars. If even one example is realized and residents can physically experience that comfort, they might choose the city over utopia. We can persuade by example that the fact that Heaven has unfolded on this earth is the city. That is what intellectually diligent public institutions should do.

Lee Kyung-hoon, Professor, Department of Architecture, Kookmin University