[Reporter’s Notebook] There Is No Alternative to Green Spaces

On the 18th, our government announced the lifting of the Greenbelt (development-restricted zones) and plans to build houses on green spaces. Although the exact locations and scale were not disclosed, the policy aims to secure more than 20,000 additional housing units near the metropolitan area. This measure was introduced by relevant ministries to cool down the overheating market amid concerns of so-called ‘panic buying’ as Seoul apartment prices have risen for 16 consecutive weeks.

One day before this announcement, another country also declared the lifting of its Greenbelt. That country is the UK, the originator of the Greenbelt concept. The reason, like Korea, is related to real estate. The Labour Party, which took power after 14 years, promised to solve the chronic shortage of housing supply. Their goal is to build 1.5 million homes, and since there is no land available, they argue that the Greenbelt must be released.

Although both Korea and the UK seem to have prioritized development logic over environmental concerns, there is a clear difference. In the UK, housing is built within the Greenbelt but specifically on ‘Greybelt’ areas. Greybelt refers to land within development-restricted zones that have lower natural conservation value. Examples include closed parking lots or abandoned wastelands that effectively do not serve as green spaces. This is a compromise to minimize green space destruction caused by indiscriminate development.

The Greybelt release plan was announced after more than a year of deliberation. At that time, the Conservative Party, which led the UK, opposed the plan. Since May last year, the Labour Party’s call to ease Greenbelt regulations grew stronger, but the Conservatives remained firm on protecting green spaces. Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also stated, “I do not believe in a state-led housing target system,” emphasizing, “We want to ensure our green spaces are protected, and that is what communities want.”

In contrast, Korea’s policy shows no concern for green spaces. The Greenbelt is classified into grades 1 to 5 based on environmental conservation value, but the government is lifting regulations even on grades 1 and 2, which had been strictly protected due to their high value. On February 21, President Yoon Suk-yeol attended a public discussion in Ulsan and proposed this deregulation, saying, “Even if the conservation grade is high, land with excellent infrastructure will be economically utilized by lowering the standards.” It is hard to see this as the stance of a politician who cares about the environment.

If necessary, unreasonable Greenbelt regulations should be eased. However, the metropolitan area should prioritize increasing green space supply rather than housing. Especially in Seoul, the park and green space area available to citizens accounts for only 3.7% of the total area. Even including palaces, it is just about 8.5%. It is truly a ‘grey city’ where green is hard to find. In contrast, Manhattan in New York, which is much larger than downtown Seoul, has a green space ratio of 26.8%. Even Central London, which faces criticism for losing green spaces, maintains a green space ratio of about 14.6%.

There may be various alternatives in real estate policy, but there are no alternatives for green spaces. The only option is to preserve green land. If one were to name a substitute, it would be psychiatric hospitals. New York’s Central Park was completed amid warnings that “if green spaces are not created, equivalent psychiatric hospitals will have to be built.” We must reflect on how devastating the easily drafted Greenbelt deregulation plan could be for our people in the future.