[Walking Through Seoul] How Far Should Seoul’s Historical Landscape Be Preserved?

Seoul: A Capital City with a Long History
The Need for Compromise Between Heritage Preservation and Urban Development
London and Paris Responded by Separating Commercial Districts
Special Management Measures Needed for the Hanyang City Wall
In the Jongmyo Development Debate, the View Must Come First

In early November, the Supreme Court ruled that the Seoul Metropolitan Government ordinance easing height restrictions in front of Jongmyo Shrine was valid. This decision sparked a heated debate. The Cultural Heritage Administration, academia, and civic groups voiced strong opposition, arguing that super high-rise buildings would seriously damage the landscape and uniqueness of Jongmyo, a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage site. In a nationwide public opinion poll, about 70% of respondents opposed the construction of super high-rise buildings and supported development restrictions.

While the debate is centered around Jongmyo, a more fundamental question has emerged: How should Seoul define and preserve its historical landscape? Finding an answer to this question may offer ways to ease the conflict between preservation and development.

It is necessary to assess Seoul’s status among the world’s major cities that have successfully preserved their historical landscapes. Seoul began as the capital of a new dynasty in 1392, served as a colonial stronghold under Japanese rule, and, after liberation in 1945 and the division of the Korean Peninsula, established itself as the capital of the Republic of Korea in the South. Seoul has been the undisputed center of power, and its influence has continued to grow.

London and Paris are comparable examples. Both cities have been the centers of power and culture since the early days of nation-building in the United Kingdom and France. Seoul’s case is different. Before Seoul, Gaeseong and Gyeongju were the centers of power and culture. Thus, Seoul does not represent the entirety of Korean history but is deeply connected to a specific period-the Joseon Dynasty. Jongmyo is one of the most symbolic cultural heritages representing this era.

Seoul downtown viewed from Naksan Park. Photo by Dongju Yoon

What about Tokyo, a city often compared to Seoul? Japan deliberately built Kyoto as its new capital in 794, marking the final stage of its nation-building period. Kyoto remained the capital and cultural center until the Meiji Restoration in 1868. However, from the 12th century, the royal court lost power, and military rulers established their own bases in various regions.

Tokugawa Ieyasu, who unified Japan in 1603, chose Edo (now Tokyo) as his power base. The government that carried out the Meiji Restoration was determined to build a new nation and moved the capital from the old cultural center of Kyoto to Edo, which had relatively little historical legacy. The city was renamed Tokyo. Since then, Tokyo has developed into Japan’s most important city, but Kyoto still retains its status as the representative city of Japanese culture and history. Kyoto boasts 17 UNESCO World Cultural Heritage sites, while Tokyo has only one: the National Museum of Western Art, designed by Le Corbusier in 1959.

Comparing the histories of London, Paris, Tokyo, Kyoto, and Seoul leads to the following summary: Seoul, unlike London and Paris, is not the sole center of power and culture in Korean history, but it has a longer history than Tokyo and, like Kyoto, has a strong image as the long-standing capital representing Korean culture and history. In this sense, Seoul is closer to Kyoto than to Tokyo.

The history of each city greatly influences its approach to preservation. The historical significance of London and Paris makes preservation essential. Both cities are also the capitals and financial and commercial centers of their countries today, so development is also necessary. While there are some differences, both cities share a common approach: they maintain buildings and surrounding landscapes of high historical value while recognizing the need for new buildings in line with the times. New buildings are not scattered randomly but are concentrated in designated commercial districts. This is a compromise between preservation and development. Classical preservationists may not be satisfied with this approach.

Tokyo and Kyoto are different. Tokyo was largely destroyed by the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923 and bombings at the end of World War II. Fear of major earthquakes led to changes in building regulations and a widespread perception that old buildings were dangerous. As a result, Tokyo is always under construction. Preservation is limited to famous buildings rather than the overall landscape. When Tokyo residents want to experience historical scenery, they visit historic cities like Kyoto. Tokyo offers little guidance for Seoul’s preservation strategy.

Kyoto, like Seoul, faces heated debates over preservation and development. However, there is a key difference. Most of Kyoto’s major cultural heritage sites are not in the city center but on the surrounding hillsides. These areas naturally preserve the landscape around cultural heritage sites due to their location in protected natural zones. As a result, except for some areas in the city center, preservation regulations are relatively weak, and the historical landscape continues to be damaged-especially since the tourism boom of the 2010s. In Seoul, UNESCO World Heritage sites such as Jongmyo and Changdeokgung Palace are located in the heart of the city, facing intense development pressure.

Given these factors, Seoul can draw multifaceted lessons on defining and preserving its historical landscape from London, Paris, and Kyoto rather than Tokyo. London and Paris have curbed large-scale development that would harm historical landscapes and established separate commercial districts. They strictly manage the areas around key cultural heritage sites, allowing only low-rise development. In contrast, Kyoto preserves historical landscapes outside the city center, making large-scale development near cultural heritage sites virtually impossible.

For Seoul, it may be worth considering designating the entire interior of the Hanyang City Wall and adjacent historical natural areas as special management zones by the Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Cultural Heritage Administration. This would enable open discussions on how to preserve cultural heritage sites and their surrounding landscapes within these areas. In Paris and its surrounding region of ?le-de-France, preservation policies are set by the Ministry of Culture. Rather than simply imposing uniform height restrictions or architectural styles, a management system is in place to protect history and natural landscapes across a broad area. The ‘London View Management Framework,’ introduced in London in the 1930s, is also worth noting. This policy designates more than 20 key viewpoints across London, preserving the ‘right to view’ from public spaces such as parks and streets where the city’s cultural heritage and urban landscape can be seen.

In the debate over development around Jongmyo, the key issue is not the height of buildings. The location and the extent to which they impact the view are far more important. Had this importance been recognized, there would have been no plans to build structures that obstruct the view directly in front of Jongmyo in the first place.

Robert Fouser, former professor at Seoul National University