[Walking Through Seoul] Who Decides Seoul's Landmarks?

Cheonggyecheon, DDP, and Seoullo 7017 as Landmarks
Driven by Politicians, Failing to Gain Public Sympathy
Content-Based Landmarks Gain Popularity on Social Media
Everyday Spaces, Not Planned Architecture, Take Center Stage
Let Sensibilities of

Among cities around the world, there are not many that have hosted both the Olympics and the World Cup. Seoul is one of these few cities. The 1988 Seoul Olympics and the 2002 World Cup significantly changed the face of Seoul. Between these two major international events, the city saw the construction of a subway system, the rise of apartment complexes, the flourishing of the Gangnam district, and the emergence of several new towns in Gyeonggi Province. Even then, as now, there was active discussion about the future of Seoul surrounding these events.

With rapid globalization, the need for a landmark in Seoul was frequently discussed. The prevailing perception at the time was that "Seoul has no landmark." This sentiment persisted from the preparations for the 1988 Olympics through the aftermath of the 2002 World Cup. Every mayor who took office after the 2000s showed great interest in this issue. The restoration of Cheonggyecheon, the construction of Dongdaemun Design Plaza (DDP), and the creation of Seoullo 7017 are examples of such efforts.

This raises several questions. Are the so-called landmarks built in the 21st century truly landmarks? Does Seoul have a landmark? Does Seoul really need one?

The National Institute of the Korean Language defines a landmark as "a sign that represents or distinguishes a certain area." Landmarks can exist not only in major cities like Seoul, but also in small towns, villages, and even natural landscapes. The Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Statue of Liberty in New York, and Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro are iconic landmarks with long histories. The Burj Khalifa in Dubai, completed in 2009, is also considered a landmark. Niagara Falls, which straddles Canada and the United States, and Uluru in Australia are representative natural landmarks.

Setting aside natural landmarks, architectural landmarks share a common feature: intentionality. They were created to commemorate something or to convey a particular idea. They possess unique meanings and structures that cannot be found elsewhere. The Eiffel Tower was built as the symbol of the 1889 Paris Exposition, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the French Revolution. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to the United States in 1876, marking the 100th anniversary of American independence. The Burj Khalifa, rather than being a monument, was constructed to showcase Dubai's forward-looking identity.

On the 10th, foreign tourists visiting N Seoul Tower in Jung-gu, Seoul, are overlooking the cityscape of downtown Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung

Where do Seoul's 21st-century landmarks fit in? They are not commemorative in nature. Like the Burj Khalifa, the DDP was built to express Seoul's futuristic identity. The restoration of Cheonggyecheon and the creation of Seoullo 7017 were intended to demonstrate Seoul's leadership in urban regeneration.

However, these attempts in the 21st century do not seem to be widely regarded as landmarks.

The main reason may be that the original proposers were politicians, specifically mayors. Rather than being created to commemorate something or pursue uniqueness through a shared vision, these projects tend to be seen as achievements of the incumbent mayor. This reflects a distrust of politicians, but it can also be interpreted as evidence of the robustness of Korean democracy, which resists government-led initiatives.

Since the 2010s, the rapid spread of social networking services (SNS) has significantly changed perceptions of what constitutes a landmark. Instead of deliberate plans to create landmarks, filming locations featured in popular culture content such as movies or dramas become known as city landmarks through the sharing of information on SNS. Rather than being designated from above, these places emerge organically through collective intelligence.

What are the landmarks of Seoul emerging in today's world of popular culture and SNS? Five pieces of content that gained immense popularity both in Korea and globally in the 21st century have greatly influenced Seoul's image: "Winter Sonata," "Gangnam Style," "Parasite," "Squid Game," and "K-Pop Demon Hunters." Among these, the Netflix series "K-Pop Demon Hunters" has generated particularly intense enthusiasm.

"Winter Sonata" featured Bukchon and Joongang High School; "Gangnam Style" showcased the Trade Tower at COEX and the banks of the Han River; "Parasite" included the Jahamun Tunnel stairs; and "Squid Game" briefly showed areas such as Ssangmun-dong and Myeong-dong Station. In contrast, "K-Pop Demon Hunters" prominently featured Bukchon, Naksan Park, Gyeongbokgung Palace, Myeong-dong, N Seoul Tower, the K-POP Square at COEX, Cheongdam Bridge over the Han River, and Seoul Olympic Main Stadium as major backdrops. While "Avengers: Age of Ultron" also highlighted the Han River area and Digital Media City, its impact was relatively limited.

In other popular videos related to Seoul, it is rare to see Cheonggyecheon, DDP, or Seoullo 7017. Instead, Bukchon Hanok Village, Gwanghwamun and Gyeongbokgung Palace, N Seoul Tower, COEX, Han River bridges and riversides, residential neighborhoods filled with alleyways, as well as subway stations and trains, are frequently featured. As these locations appear in popular culture and are visited by many people, their images spread rapidly and simultaneously through SNS, and they have naturally become Seoul's landmarks.

An interesting commonality among these landmarks chosen by popular culture and SNS is that they were not intentionally created as landmarks. Gwanghwamun and Gyeongbokgung Palace have strong commemorative significance as symbols of Korean culture before the Japanese colonial period. Bukchon Hanok Village, N Seoul Tower, COEX, subway stations, and the various bridges over the Han River were all built for specific functional purposes. The Olympic Stadium, while having the character of a landmark, was constructed as part of a large-scale event and is therefore different from decorative landmarks.

Not only in Seoul, but also in other cities, new landmarks are emerging through the collective intelligence formed on SNS. In Brooklyn, New York, the view of the Brooklyn Bridge framed by old red brick buildings has become a new landmark, attracting many people who come specifically to take photos there.

Seoul's new landmarks are emerging in response to the sensibilities of the times and collective intelligence. Among the places currently gaining popularity, some will inevitably lose their appeal. It is also difficult to predict which landmarks will rise in the future. What is clear is that landmarks are not created simply because politicians or experts intend to make them. Places like Cheonggyecheon and Seoullo 7017, despite being well received by Seoul citizens, do not automatically become landmarks. Perhaps it is better to leave the designation of landmarks to collective intelligence and for cities to focus on fulfilling their own roles, rather than being preoccupied with creating landmarks.

Robert Fouser, former professor at Seoul National University