[Walking Through Seoul] Why Seoul Needs Diverse Buildings

Apartments, Villas, and Detached Houses Coexisted
The Golden Age of Diversity in the 1990s and 2000s
Chain Stores, Local Shops, and Offices Were Intermingled
Less Convenience, But Vibrant City Life
Redevelopment and Gentrification Take Their Toll
Destruction of Existing Communities Since 2010
Local Ecosystems Erased, Vitality Lost
Small-Scale Development in Tokyo Offers a Lesson

Every year in early May, people who care about cities gather to walk together in events held in cities around the world. This is called "Jane’s Walk." It takes place around May 4th, the birthday of Jane Jacobs (1916?2006), an American urban theorist, to honor her memory. Having participated in this event several times in Seoul, I have walked for quite a long time with those who cherish the city. Why do many cities, including Seoul, commemorate Jane Jacobs? What relevance does Jane Jacobs’ urban theory have to Seoul?

Jane Jacobs is now considered the most famous urban theorist in the United States, but she started as an outsider. Her first book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in 1961, sharply criticized the urban renewal policies of the 1950s in the U.S., which focused on wholesale demolition, and caused a sensation. Jacobs joined forces with citizens to fight New York City to stop the highway development in Greenwich Village, the old neighborhood where she lived in Manhattan. At that time, New York City officials did not regard Jacobs, who had dropped out after two years at Columbia University, as an expert. They simply treated her as a "noisy lady." However, the result was Jacobs’ victory in 1969 when the highway plan was canceled with the support of the citizens.

The core of Jane Jacobs’ urban theory is the vitality of cities, and its source is diversity. Jacobs proposed that four conditions are necessary for a city to create and maintain diversity. First, residential, commercial facilities, and public spaces must coexist in the area. Second, the layout should consist of short blocks that are walkable. Third, there should be a variety of buildings of different ages and conditions. The more diverse the buildings, the more diverse the social classes that can live there, and a variety of offices and shops can be established. Fourth, there must be a high population density. In other words, a large number of people must live there for vitality to exist.

How does Seoul look at the end of 2024 from the perspective of Jacobs’ theoretical background? Seoul is famous as a vibrant city, but if you look a little deeper, it feels like its vitality is gradually diminishing. This is because diversity is gradually weakening. According to Jacobs’ diversity theory, Seoul’s golden age of diversity was in the 1990s and 2000s. During this important period when Seoul transitioned from a developing country to a developed country and from an authoritarian state to a democratic one, various social classes lived mixed in diverse buildings in each district, and the commercial sectors were diverse. Except for areas developed mainly with apartments, housing types such as apartments, villas, multi-family houses, and detached houses coexisted in the same area. Large franchise chain stores, local shops, branches of large corporations, and small startup offices were mixed. Although the standard of living and convenience were lower than today, Seoul at that time was certainly a diverse and vibrant city.

A residential complex in downtown Seoul featuring both apartments and houses. Photo by Jo Yongjun

Then, what has influenced Seoul’s diversity since the 2010s? The main causes can be attributed to redevelopment and gentrification. In Seoul, wholesale demolition-style redevelopment continues. Through this, dilapidated houses disappear, clean and pleasant new houses are built, and the residential environment improves with green spaces secured between apartment complexes. This is an undeniable advantage of redevelopment.

However, the destruction of existing communities and the loss of local diversity caused by this are very important and cannot be easily overlooked disadvantages. Redevelopment target areas are usually old places where buildings have gradually been constructed over many years, creating a diverse atmosphere in the neighborhood. Along major roads with good accessibility, there are mostly new buildings with modern facilities, mainly occupied by branches of large corporations and chain stores, but just a little further inside, you can easily find older buildings housing local small shops or indie cafes started at low cost. Except for large apartment complexes, housing types are very diverse, ranging from elderly homeowners who have lived there for a long time to young office workers renting one-room apartments. Due to wholesale demolition redevelopment, not only visible buildings disappear but also the local ecosystem is demolished, causing the area to lose its vitality.

Cities around the world have experienced gentrification for a long time. It is by no means a simple issue. In Seoul, gentrification cases are mainly concentrated in some areas of Gangbuk, and Seoul’s gentrification has its characteristics. It mainly occurs in commercial districts, and as building use changes from residential to commercial, the local resident population decreases. This Seoul-style "commercial gentrification" causes the loss of local diversity just like redevelopment. As the resident population decreases, many areas lose their residential function, and the types of new commercial establishments are not very diverse. Cafes dominate overwhelmingly, and the rest mostly sell trendy food and alcohol. Specialty stores are noticeable, but similar ones can be easily found elsewhere, so they do not contribute much to Seoul’s diversity. It is not only the buildings but also the activities inside that lack diversity. Trend-sensitive shops find it difficult to maintain long-term businesses. When one trend cycle ends, shops are replaced by another trend, and this cycle repeats continuously. Diversity drifts further away.

So, should Seoul’s future be envisioned only as densely packed apartment complexes and commercial gentrification? That would be a great loss. How can Seoul restore its diversity? Since it is closely related to property rights, strict regulations would be politically difficult to accept. What if we take advice from Tokyo, which shares many similarities with Seoul? Tokyo has almost no wholesale demolition redevelopment and little commercial gentrification. Instead, small-scale developments are frequent. Of course, new buildings are constructed and old ones replaced to meet social changes, but because the buildings are small in scale, the area improves slowly while maintaining diversity. The resident population is maintained along with diverse commercial activities. This keeps the vitality of the entire city. Although Jane Jacobs had no connection with Tokyo, if she saw Tokyo in 2024, wouldn’t she regard it as a city that well preserves the four conditions of diversity?

Robert Pauzer, Former Professor at Seoul National University