[Walking Through Seoul] 'Korean-Style Gentrification' Where Only Commercialization Remains

[Asia Economy] There are several so-called ‘up-and-coming neighborhoods’ in Seoul. Whenever a neighborhood becomes popular, one word inevitably appears: gentrification. Let’s first look at its definition and history. The term was first used by British sociologist Ruth Glass. It refers to discussions about changes in residents within a certain residential area and the damage suffered by specific social classes during that process. The term was first used in 1964 to describe phenomena in London, and later applied to similar occurrences in several cities in North America and Europe.

Although the situation varies slightly from city to city, the general phenomenon is similar. That is, in old and rundown areas with low rents, young artists or those belonging to fringe groups begin to gather and live. Because of them, new cafes, restaurants, and unique shops start to appear, gradually revitalizing the local commercial district. Outsiders who like this atmosphere begin to visit more frequently, and as the number of consumers increases, new commercial facilities continue to grow. As the area improves, more outsiders want to ‘live’ there, and building or house owners start renovating old and worn houses for these newcomers, raising monthly rents, house prices, and lease fees. Those who cannot afford this are forced to leave, causing the old community to collapse. The atmosphere created by these residents disappears, leaving only those who can afford the high rents or large corporate chains. The original residents all leave, and the area loses its charm, becoming an expensive, characterless wealthy neighborhood.

The pattern of gentrification that first appeared in Europe and North America has similarly appeared in Seoul. However, there is a very different aspect: it is commercially centered. This can be understood by recalling the scene of Daehakro in Seoul in the late 1980s to early 1990s. At that time, as university students’ purchasing power increased, commercial facilities steadily began to appear in the back alleys of residential areas where many students gathered, like Daehakro. Until the mid-1980s, commercial areas were mainly formed along main roads, but from the late 1980s, they gradually moved into the alleys, and single-family houses were rapidly converted into commercial facilities one by one. By the mid-1990s, most single-family houses in the alleys had become commercial facilities or multi-family houses, and due to this commercialization, Daehakro’s residential function weakened, turning into a neighborhood full of all kinds of shops. Around the same time, Hongdae in Seoul underwent a very similar transformation, and by the late 1990s, the residential function in both places had almost completely disappeared.

Of course, there are also cases similar to those in Europe and North America. The only such case is Bukchon. Due to Seoul’s hanok preservation project in the 2000s, economically affluent people renovated hanoks here and began to live in them or use them as villas. As a result, long-time residents sold their houses or left, and various commercial spaces for visitors began to appear on the streets. At the same time, all real estate prices soared, and Bukchon gradually became a wealthy neighborhood.

Yeonnam-dong back alley, a residential area transformed into restaurants and cafes. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

So, what about today? Looking at Seoul’s up-and-coming neighborhoods like Seochon, Yeonnam-dong, Sangsu-dong, and Seongsu-dong, we can see that they are repeating the transformation process of Daehakro and Hongdae from long ago. Various shops have entered even the alleys that were once residential areas, and the residential function is gradually weakening or disappearing. Ikseon-dong, which was already popular, has also completely transformed the hanoks where people used to live into commercial spaces, and house prices have risen significantly.

This phenomenon is not limited to Seoul. Similar cases can be easily found in other cities outside Seoul. Therefore, the phenomenon occurring in Korean cities is more accurately described as simple commercialization rather than gentrification. While gentrification in Europe and North America involves rising house prices forcing long-time residents to leave, in Korea, not only do monthly rents rise, but spaces disappear or their nature completely changes. If one were to describe it, ‘commercialization gentrification’ would be the most accurate term.

There is another type of gentrification in Korea: ‘new construction gentrification.’ Apartments and officetels built through redevelopment projects are the main actors. Real estate owners, construction companies, and local governments cooperate to relocate local residents, completely demolish existing buildings, and create new apartment-centered residential areas. Since apartment prices in Seoul are high, the newly built areas are inhabited more by newly incoming high-income white-collar workers than by the original residents, and within a short period, the area transforms from a working-class neighborhood into a wealthy urban neighborhood. Around the newly built apartments, commercial spaces catering to the tastes of the new residents appear, most of which are large corporate chain stores.

Seochon in Seoul is a representative case of commercialization gentrification. Right next to it, Gyo-nam-dong is a representative case of new construction gentrification. These two areas suggest important issues related to Seoul’s future. That is, if commercial spaces continue to penetrate residential areas in popular neighborhoods like Seochon, the number of livable houses will gradually decrease. This leads to a decline in the resident population and weakens the residential function of the area. Also, if redevelopment continues to demolish existing houses and build flashy apartment complexes like in Gyo-nam-dong, affordable housing for single-person households, young people, and low-income groups disappears. The loss of affordable housing means that housing suitable for various social classes such as young people, retirees, low-income groups, and single-person households disappears from the city center. As a result, these groups can no longer live in the city center.

If this Korean-style gentrification continues, what will Seoul’s future look like? Places with unique charm or where redevelopment is difficult will become areas where almost no one lives, filled only with commercial spaces. Areas where redevelopment is possible will become cities inhabited only by middle-class or higher white-collar workers. Is this truly the future Seoul dreams of? If so, it cannot be helped, but can such a city be expected to have vitality and creativity? Can social justice truly exist in such a city?

Robert Pauzer, Former Professor at Seoul National University