[Column] Evolving Communities, Blocked Public Pedestrian Pathways

Gaepo DH Anor Hills

At the entrance of The H Honor Hills in Gaepo-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, there is a metal fence that requires residents to scan their access cards to enter. Nearby, Raemian Blestige also installed metal fences at each entrance starting in 2019. Both places have public pedestrian pathways, but these fences prevent anyone other than residents from using them. Public pedestrian pathways refer to walkways within apartment complexes that are designed to allow non-residents to pass through. Such fences blocking outsiders’ access have been installed not only in Gaepo but also in several complexes in Banpo, Jangwi, and other areas.

It is common for major large apartment complexes in Seoul to block access to outsiders. Since the late 2000s, apartment complexes have evolved by restricting outsider entry and specializing community facilities. The so-called “gated community” has become a widespread phenomenon. As community facilities within complexes become more diverse, the barriers to outsiders’ entry have increased. Non-residents face inconvenience as they are blocked from entering the complex and must take longer routes around large complexes, even if they do not intend to use the facilities.

As cases of breaking promises to open community facilities in exchange for floor area ratio (FAR) benefits have increased, Seoul City announced on the 7th that it will establish “Operation Standards for Opening Resident Community Facilities.” The announcement includes stronger administrative measures against 31 complexes, including Acro River Park and One Bailey, if they fail to keep their facility opening promises. Unfortunately, this plan does not include provisions regarding public pedestrian pathways. Residents argue that controlling outsider access to public pedestrian pathways is possible because they are private property, while public interest argues that they should be open due to their public nature. Typically, public pedestrian pathways are designated when they are used as school routes or have historically been paths people used within residential complexes. The city says there is no appropriate way to force opening in complexes that did not receive FAR incentives when installing public pedestrian pathways.

A member of Seoul’s urban planning committee explained, “Public pedestrian pathways are designated based on public necessity regardless of incentives, but there is a difference in opinion on whether to regard them as private property or to recognize their public nature as existing paths.” He added, “If any land has a tradition of being in a public context, it is right to assign publicness to it.” He also noted that compared to Western countries where urban spatial structures were designed early on, publicness is relatively weakly recognized in Korea.

Legal measures to force apartment residents who block public pedestrian pathways to open them are also weak. The National Land Planning Act allows reporting complexes that do not open public pedestrian pathways and imposes fines. However, some complexes continue to maintain entrance fences after paying fines of 1 million won. A Seoul city official lamented, “We have repeatedly requested the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to amend the law to allow imposing ‘enforcement penalties’ under the National Land Planning Act, but we have only received negative responses.”

When public pedestrian pathways are blocked, neighboring residents’ right to walk is infringed. Children’s school commute times become longer, and elderly or disabled people face the inconvenience of taking longer routes. Last year, Seoul City introduced a clause in the “Amendment to the Floor Area Ratio Incentive for Apartment Complexes” that allows increasing the FAR by up to 10 percentage points if a public pedestrian pathway is installed. If more complexes install public pedestrian pathways to receive this incentive, the same problems may recur. It seems impossible to resolve concerns about security or private property rights raised by residents within complexes through “persuasion.” Whether by imposing enforcement penalties through legal amendments or establishing operation standards for public pedestrian pathways, urgent measures must be taken. A city where everyone lives comfortably is a good city.