As usual in Seoul, real estate and urbanism are never far from the headlines, but let's skip topical stuff and limit to mere footnotes recent controversies (this Seoul city erection in front of Jongmyo*? that measure from the national government**?).
Let's talk shop.
You see in with those 'for rent' signs, you measure it with the speed at which new stores tend to close: small businesses are really feeling the pinch***. Part of it is conjunctural - the Korean economy as a whole is struggling, and demographics don't bode well for the future. Part of it is structural - more than COVID, the labor reforms that preceded changed fundamentally the street experience for Seoulites: used to a city that never slept, they're now coping with last orders at 9 pm or restaurants closing for dinner altogether.
And of course, more and more Koreans are now ordering everything online. Not just these GenZ who don't cook and limit their IRL shopping experiences to retailtainment or browsing Seongsu-dong's pop-up streets like their parents did with fashion magazines. Yes, Seoul's last mile equation is not sustainable (and as much as I appreciate last minute, early morning, ultra fresh deliveries, I'm glad their social costs are being investigated), but the trend is global, and all cities have to adapt.
It's harder to adapt when the urban hardware is obsolete.
You're less inclined to contribute to your neighborhood's vitality when 'proximity' shops and services are not so close and in Seoul, apartment blocks tend to cut citizens from their city.
In the old gen 'apateu' blocks, a building devoted to businesses was generally included near the main entrance, sometimes in secondary entrances. This 'open ring' was seldom complete, but everybody walked or drove by these shops every day, particularly since few parking spaces were underground. These businesses belonged to the community.
Some housing complexes are more blended with their surroundings, their edges consisting of mixed use buildings. Even if there's less often greenery to compensate****, pedestrians enjoy (functionally speaking) a better street experience from the outside (urban continuity, diversity...). On the other hand, the inside may seem more exclusive. By nature mixed use buildings, officetels usually include shops and services. But when those take too big a share residents can easily feel overwhelmed. Many exclusive, high rise projects with only a couple of buildings have a mall on the lower floors, a 'vertical buffer' that's de facto a separate building with a devoted parking to preserve the residents' quality of life. But then, since it takes anyway 10 mn to leave your luxurious apartment and reach an entrance that's far from everything, many prefer to take their car and shop elsewhere, and this vertical city can turn into a tale of two cities.
Another tricky model is what I call the 'captive cluster'; very common in greenfield 'new towns' across the capital region and around major cities. In the middle (in best cases) or at the edge (too often) of a group of apateu blocks that can involve different developer brands, urban planners insert a low rise block of mixed use buildings with all the shops and services on the ground floor. Some can be relatively well done, making the best of what's left of a natural landscape (e.g. waterways), and you can almost enjoy a village atmosphere that changes from the dull tombstone collections around, particularly since each lot owner build their own. But too often these clusters fail because there are not enough candidates to open shop*****, or because they've been poorly designed.
Instead of an open grid, some of these clusters (particularly recent ones) propose only one or two car entrances and force visitors into a full round along a conveyor belt before exiting. On purpose, like a journey in an Ikea store makes you browse the whole catalogue. Except people move by car because these new towns are humongous, and the streets and parking spaces are seldom as entertaining, well drawn, and planned. Sometimes, these clusters are even split into two independent halves that don't communicate directly. And this 'captiveness' is actually a sales argument to recruit new businesses... Needless to say, not very sustainable.
If Seoul's 'MOA Town' concept signaled an evolution from massive tabula rasa to partial redevelopment, allowing more diverse cityscapes and ecosystems (see "From Human Town to Gather Town"), the market remains dominated by big projects, New Towns that obliterate real cities.
It's not its big blocks but its remaining villages that make Seoul special. If we neuter them, if we destroy diversity, city centers will die. If we do nothing they'll die out, even if a few local markets miraculously manage to thrive and warm up whole neighborhoods.
I've been advocating pragmatic approaches to revive decaying city centers. They all involve bringing back inhabitants, even if that means designing exceptions to the rules, for example by allowing mixed uses in low rise business areas, or small scale revamps that involve shared facilities or obligations (e.g. elevators, parking spaces). Some may be implemented, stay tuned.
Seoul Village 2025
Welcome to our Korean Errlines! Follow Seoul Village on Facebook, Bluesky, Threads, Substack, and X/Twitter, follow me on Instagram.
Download 'Seoul VillageS', the free ebook.
* ICYMI Seoul city decided to replace Sewoon Sangga with a park between Jongmyo and Namsan, but also to 'compensate' by allowing much taller buildings in the vicinity, which of course doesn't fit preservation or UNESCO Heritage guidelines:
** ICYMI the government extended Seoul's speculative zone from the 3 usual districts (Gangnam, Songpa, Seocho) to the whole city, which resulted in a freeze in transactions (except in the 3 districts that became relatively more attractive), and a hike in rental costs. Like previous reforms, the aim seems to be crushing further the middle class and making first purchases impossible (the guy in charge of the reforms was driven by his idea that first time homeowners tended to vote more conservative)....
*** Big players are not spared, but if HomePlus will yet again change hands (Carrefour, HomeEver, Tesco...
WhatEver?), its financial trouble have a lot to do with MBK Partners' disastrous
management.
**** Wangsimni New Town's Majang-ro 19-gil sets a better example with dense trees on both sides,
***** yes, these new towns also include new schools, so it's not just dwellings that are in oversupply nationwide
Visitors (
