Article

Urban Sustainability Versus Green-Washing—Fallacy

and Reality of Urban Regeneration in
Downtown Seoul
Thorsten Schuetze 1, *,† and Lorenzo Chelleri 2,†
Received: 24 November 2015; Accepted: 24 December 2015; Published: 30 December 2015
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen
1 Department of Architecture, SungKyunKwan University, 2066 Seobu-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon-si,
Gyeonggi-do 440-746, Korea
2 Gran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), Urban Studies Unit, L’Aquila 67100, Italy; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-31-299-4763; Fax: +82-31-290-7570
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: This paper examines the planning paradigm shift related to the contested “urban
renaissance” mega-project in Downtown Seoul (Korea). Similar to other global cities, over the
last few decades, different mega-projects have been successfully implemented in Seoul. These
projects have been considered engines for urban renewals and transformation. This paper builds on
the analysis of the failure and re-framing planning strategy for the Green Corridor (GC) mega-project,
part of the “Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown Seoul”. The GC case reveals various
critical insights for urban sustainability: (i) the current mega-projects’ sustainability fallacy, related
to top-down, technocratic densification, and greening practices; and (ii) the untapped potential of
Asian traditional and irregular small scale urban patterns, and their related socio-cultural value in
addressing the renaissance of the long term urban sustainability. In particular, the discussed research
findings point out that urban renaissance enabling sustainability principles requires integrated, small
scale, incremental, and adaptive (stepwise) urban planning and design processes that go well beyond
general strategies following the so-called “green growth” paradigm.

Keywords: urban regeneration; sustainability fallacy; gentrification; industrial district conservation;

Seoul; Seun district

1. Introduction
Our Planet’s sustainability challenges are mainly related to urbanization processes and related
resource flows that shape and challenge the world today as well as in the future. The most dramatic
urban growth is occurring in Asia [1]. Among the mega cities in the Asia-Pacific region, Seoul in the
Republic of Korea is an emerging global city that has experienced the fastest growth rate in the world,
gaining 9 million inhabitants in only 40 years [2]. Becoming a first-class global city in only half a century
has meant the massive development of polycentric districts performing critical economic functions
within national and international networks of productions and markets [3]. Since the early 1980s,
decentralization policies in Seoul have led to the creation of industrial and business districts outside of
the center of the city of Seoul. Such economic nodes were created from the development of different
metropolitan sub-centers (such as Yongsan, Gangnam, Yeoido, and Sangam). The creation of such
sub-centers induced a concurrence and competition with the production and business activities, and
the economic activities in the original industrial and business districts in the city center. The business
activities in the new sub centers resulted in the decline of business activities in some of the historical
city districts, which then underwent radical restructuring processes [2]. In the last decade, a series of

Sustainability 2016, 8, 33; doi:10.3390/su8010033 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 2 of 14

successful urban mega-projects and plans have attempted to reshape and regenerate such historical
city districts by enhancing urban environmental quality and the quality and functionality of public
spaces [4–6]. In contrast to these mega-project approaches, it is suggested that urban regeneration
should be regarded as a stepwise participative and integrated process, dealing with urban problems in
an integrated way, and using long term development perspectives [7]. However, in practice, urban
regeneration was, and still is, particularly in the Republic of Korea, mainly driven by top-down
megaprojects, considered to be the engine for the economic and spatial transformation of declining
neighborhoods [8–10]. The bias of such strategies relies on the transformation of large areas and
the implementation of megaprojects with their usually negative social impacts [11–13]. Accordingly,
urban regeneration has been commonly associated with gentrification processes [5]. Cities are prone
to intra-urban social inequalities, and the increasing global competitiveness of cities is unfortunately
fostering these differences [14]. Examination of European cases has shown that a growing disconnection
between social and physical aspects of urban renewal projects has been occurring since the 1970s [15].
Barcelona for example is one of the European emergent capital cities, which in the last two decades
built its success upon a series of urban renewal megaprojects. Its governance model, based on the
private-public partnerships for developing such large infrastructure city remodeling, was better known
as the Barcelona Model [16]. This model has been highly criticized for its top down planning approach
and with a lack of public participation and for its missing social implications [10]. Comparing European
experiences of large-scale urban regeneration projects with urban renewal projects in emerging global
cities in Asia, similar approaches, patterns, and implications can be identified. In Seoul, for example,
only a “few efforts have specifically focused on linking social structural changes within the city to its
increasingly intense participation in the global economy” [17] (p. 145). Since the beginning of the 21st
century, urban regeneration strategies in Seoul have mainly emphasized the quality enhancement of
the built environment. In practice, these strategies have resulted in the construction of spectacular
infrastructures and the creation of public open spaces. The realized projects have improved the image
of the city and its attractiveness for investors and the so-called creative-class. The main evidence for
investor-driven urban renewal processes is that 100% of the new housing built within the designated
urban renewal areas in Seoul are high-rise apartments [18]. The outcome of such urban renewal projects
is regarded as successful, at least from an investment driven and economical point of view. Seoul has
also developed into a first-class global city and is an example for many successful growing cities in
emerging Asian economies. However, three main problems related to such a large-scale regeneration
strategy have been identified. Such large-scale investor driven urban renewal and redevelopment
projects are generally associated with (i) important social gentrification processes [18]; (ii) displacement
of clusters of smaller enterprises [19]; and (iii) the perception that traditions and cultural heritage have
often been perceived as a factor inhibiting modern development [20]. Based on the realization of the
main problems associated with conventional large-scale urban renewal and redevelopment projects,
this paper discusses sustainability aspects beyond the large scale, top-down, technocratic driven
greening proposed from the Green Corridor (GC) megaproject, which is part of the Urban Renaissance
Master Plan for Downtown Seoul. This megaproject is a very good example to illustrate the tensions
between the broad (and mainly un-addressed) meanings of urban sustainability transformation [21],
versus the most common “business as usual” urban greening practices [22]. The tensions between
sustainability and green-washing [23] are discussed in line with the last decade’s critiques on eco-cities,
which are regarded as laboratories where complex partnerships of private corporations and public
entities test the latest design principles and technologies for future so-called green and sustainable
(or zero-emission) cities [24–26]. It seems indeed that the green-washing strategies of corporations,
rooted back into the 1970s (when “green” advertising campaigns were denying industrial production’s
environmental impacts), have generally not changed much. Green-washing strategies changed from
corporative greening in the past to nowadays development of green urban utopias, which serve
for the mainstreaming of corporations’ business as usual market interests supporting the recent
global urbanization processes [23]. Furthermore, green-washing is practiced in the framework of
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 3 of 14

urban renewal, redevelopment, and regeneration projects. An emerging literature is exploring the
gentrification processes induced from greening practices [22,27] when green-washing takes place in
already existing cities [28]. Accordingly, this paper explores the tensions between green-washing and a
broader meaning of urban sustainability [21] in addressing urban renewal using the example of the
development plan for the Seun district, located in the historical city center of Seoul.

2. Methods

2.1. Theoretical Framework: Definition and Challenges of Sustainable Urban Development and Design
The urban development patterns of Asian global cities have followed the traditional global
models of cities such as New York or London, which have been setting the quality standards for urban
normativity and design [29]. With their growth rate and ongoing renewal programs, these cities have
assumed sustainability as one of the normative principles in urban design, assuring attractiveness in
the city environment. However, a precise definition for sustainable urban development and design has
not been offered. Indeed, for around 30 years, while green urbanism has been promoting conceptual
models and practices toward urban design according to the principles of zero-emissions and zero-waste,
different critics have shown compact and sustainable city imperatives [30–32]. Many efforts have been
made to build a strong corpus of principles and indicators for urban sustainability [33,34]. However,
less attention has been paid to how to prepare urban sustainability performance in society across
cultures and classes, addressing social responsibility and economical aspects on different levels of
urban scales [35]. According to over 200 different definitions for sustainability, it is challenging
to understand urban sustainability going beyond the promotion of compact and energy efficient
urban design [36]. However, specific criteria have been recognized as important in enhancing social
sustainability [11]. Accordingly, the following criteria should be taken into account within urban
regeneration processes: (i) cultural heritage conservation; (ii) accessibility of facilities, iii) satisfaction
of welfare requirements; and (iv) availability of open spaces [11].
In order to better frame sustainable urban development and design within regeneration projects,
not only should the implication for building sustainability be clearly understood, but also the meaning
of urban regeneration as well as the differences between “urban regeneration”, “urban renewal”, and
“urban redevelopment”. Roberts defines urban regeneration as the “comprehensive and integrated
visions and actions, which lead to the resolution of urban problems and which seek to bring about a
lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental conditions of an area that
has been subject to change” [7]. Roberts clarifies the evolution of urban regeneration, which in the
early 1950s (after the second world war in Europe), was better identified as “urban reconstruction”,
evolving during the 1960s into more participatory and decentralized approaches being recognized as
urban “revitalization practices” [7]. These approaches were followed by a process essentially focused
on built environment improvements, characterized in the 1970s under the term “urban renewal”.
The term “urban redevelopment” was introduced during the 1980s. With clear general missions
but less well-defined purposes, the term “urban regeneration” practices emerged in the 1990s. The
described practices and examples of urban “regeneration”, “renewal”, or “redevelopment” imply that
any approach to tackle a specific problem should be constructed within systemic views, as well as
with long-term, strategic plans, visions, and purposes in mind. However, as explained from the case
study of the Seun district in Seoul discussed in the subsequent sections of this paper, the concepts
“urban renewal” and “urban regeneration” are also still used interchangeably in both policies and
academic international literature. The less participative approach associated with “urban renewal” is
often poorly differentiated from the more intense community participation approach relating to the
concept of “urban regeneration”.
Nevertheless, both concepts are unfortunately often beset with negative social implications, such
as the destruction of the existing social networks and the expulsion of vulnerable groups etc. [11,13,37].
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 4 of 14

It is worth nothing that in this paper, we decided to illustrate the Seoul downtown “renaissance” plan
in order to individuate the elements of such besetting and the sustainability criteria used to promote it.

2.2. Research Design

This paper on urban sustainability fallacies emphasizes that urban redevelopment megaprojects
generally address sustainability by building “green utopias” from the scratch, and result therefore
in urban and social emptiness, which are reflected in the experiences with many current eco-city
experiments [23,26,38]. The presented research uses the example of the urban regeneration plans of
the Seun district in Downtown Seoul.
This research is based mainly on secondary data, obtained from extensive review, analysis, and
evaluation of published discussions, reports, and plans. The analyses and discussions on sustainable
urban development are based on the definition that urban sustainability is a co-evolution among the
great sub-systems making up a city (economic, social, physical, and environmental), which guarantees
the local population a non-decreasing level of wellbeing in the long term, without compromising the
possibilities of development of surrounding areas [39,40]. In addressing such integrated dimensions of
urban sustainability, this paper introduces the recent patterns of development in Seoul (Section 3.1.
Development and decline of Seun district within the rise of Seoul as a global city). Furthermore, this
paper deepens the understanding of some key megaprojects by critical analysis of the Downtown Seoul
“Urban Renaissance Master Plan” (Section 3.2. The Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown
Seoul). This paper also critically discusses the fallacy of the current renewal model (Section 3.3. The
fallacy of a green utopia). Finally new lines and philosophy of interventions fostering the existing
culture and structures within the sustainable urban regeneration plan are suggested by re-framing
the sustainability renaissance of the Seun district (Section 4. Discussion). The method applied in the
research discussed in this paper is an analysis and review of multidisciplinary literature on the critical
discussion of urban sustainability and redevelopment issues. Furthermore, redevelopment plans from
different periods have been analyzed and evaluated as well as public discussions, interviews, and
results of workshops with local residents, retail owners, workers, business people and artists living
in the Seun Sangga building and in the surrounding neighborhoods of the Seun district. An onsite
physical analysis executed in the framework of the fieldwork has been used in order to validate the
findings from the previous analysis and the critical perception of the Seoul Downtown Renaissance
Plan and the Green axis redevelopment proposal.

3. Results

3.1. Development and Decline of Seun District Within the Rise of Seoul As a Global City
In order to understand the evolution and current challenges associated with the urban renewal of
the Seun area located in the historical city of Seoul, it is necessary to explore the historical patterns of
Seoul in terms of its growth and the development of regional decentralization policies.
Today, Seoul is considered a leading and rapidly increasing global city [41] as a result of the
economic boom known as the “Miracle on the Han River” that occurred during the period from 1961 to
1996, in which the city was transformed from the ashes of the Korean War to become Asia’s fourth and
the world’s thirteenth largest metropolitan economy [42]. Seoul is a very dense city, with more than
10.4 million inhabitants (roughly a quarter of the population of the Republic of Korea) concentrated
in less than the 1 percent of the country’s land area. The very nature of Seoul as a high-density
global city should be considered in the framework of development plans, and in terms of its regional
influence on the Seoul Metropolitan Area (also referred to as Seoul Capital Area, SCA). SCA includes
the surrounding Incheon metropolis and Gyeonggi province and, after Tokyo, is the world’s second
largest metropolitan area with over 25.6 million people [43]. The population of SCA is expected to
grow by more than 17% before 2030, with a growth rate of nearly 1% per year [44]. The Capital Region
Readjustment Act was endorsed in 1982 to control the Seoul city center’s growing population by
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 5 of 14

decentralizing urban development through sub-centers such as Yeoido (a district on a 8.48 km2 big
island in the middle of the Han River) and Gangnam (a district which has been developed to high
density residential
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33and commercial areas in the 1990s, and became the district with the most expensive
residential areas, the most dynamic business areas, and the most active entertainment areas in Seoul).
Since then,
areas in almost
Seoul). Since50% of Seoul’s
then, almost total
50% of employment
Seoul’s total inemployment
2008 was found in the
in 2008 was districts
found in of the
Yeoido and
districts
Gangnam. While urban While
land use in the 2 2
of Yeoido and Gangnam. urban landSCAuse in increased
the SCA 1.6 times from
increased 673from
1.6 times km 673 to 1092
km2 to km 1092 in km
the2
period between 1980–2000 [2], the population growth stopped and
in the period between 1980–2000 [2], the population growth stopped and has since decreased in the has since decreased in the Seoul
city
Seoulcenter since 1990.
city center sinceThis
1990.development
This development can be can explained by the urban
be explained by therenewal
urban renewalpolicy that aims
policy at
that
redevelopments,
aims at redevelopments, which are based
which areon the on
based destruction and replacement
the destruction and replacement of built of up areas
built with high
up areas with
population
high population density, with apartment
density, with apartment complexes
complexeswith lower population
with lower density
population [45]. [45].
density
The Seun
Seun district
districtisislocated
locatedinin the
the historical
historical part
part of central
of central SeoulSeoul (Figure
(Figure 1) and 1) consists
and consists of a
of a large
large
number number of historical
of historical urban urban
patterns. patterns.
The area The area is east
is located located east
of the cityof center,
the citysouthcenter, south
of the of the
Jongmyo
Jongmyo
Royal Shrine Royal Shrine
Shrine Shrine (UNESCO
(UNESCO World Heritage
World Heritage site sincesite sinceand
1995), 1995), andofnorth
north of the Cheonggye
the Cheonggye Cheon
Cheon creek.
creek. The The
creek hadcreek
beenhad been covered
covered up with up with concrete,
concrete, serving as serving as an elevated
an elevated urban highwayurban highway
for more
for
thanmore than before
30 years, 30 years, before
being being completely
completely restored and restored
reopened andas reopened as a liner
a liner public parkpublic
opened park opened
in 2005 [5].
in 2005 [5]. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the identity of thethe
identity of the Seun
Seun district is alsodistrict
shapedissignificantly
also shapedby significantly by the “Seun
the “Seun Sangga” (also
Sangga”
known as(also Sewoonknown as Sewoon
Sangga) building,Sangga)
a 1 km building,
long and a 81 to
km17long andtall
stories 8 tomultipurpose
17 stories tallresidential
multipurpose and
residential and commercial center (see Figure 2), completed in 1967. This
commercial center (see Figure 2), completed in 1967. This long north-south corridor of the urban area, long north-south corridor of
the urban area,
intersecting the intersecting
traditional urban the traditional
pattern, andurban pattern,
crossing theand crossing the
Cheonggye CheonCheonggye
creek in theCheon creek
northern
in thewas
part, northern part,by
designed wasthedesigned
prominent by the prominent
architect architect KimThe
Kim Swoo-Geun. Swoo-Geun.
building was The designed
building was and
designed
constructed andinconstructed
an area thatinhad an area
beenthat had beendemolished
completely completely duringdemolished duringWorld
the Second the Second
War, World
when
War,
Korea when
wasKoreastill was
under stillJapanese
under Japanese occupation.
occupation. The existing
The existing buildings
buildings in that
in that corridorhad
corridor had been
demolished in order to create free open space for military purposes within within the the built
built upup urban
urban fabric.
fabric.
After the
theKorean
Korean WarWar(1950–1953),
(1950–1953), the area
the was
areaoccupied
was occupiedby illegally constructed
by illegally residentialresidential
constructed buildings.
In the sameInperiod,
buildings. the same informal
period,settlements were also were
informal settlements beingalsobuilt in many
being builtother
in many open spaces
other open in spaces
Seoul,
such as the riverside of the Cheonggye stream. The informal settlements
in Seoul, such as the riverside of the Cheonggye stream. The informal settlements and illegally and illegally constructed
buildings
constructed in buildings
the Seun area in thewereSeunfinally
areademolished
were finally fordemolished
the construction for the of the Seun Sangga
construction of thebuilding
Seun
and the building
Sangga Cheonggye andhighway in the 1960s.
the Cheonggye highway in the 1960s.

Figure1.1.Map
Figure Mapof
ofSeoul
Seouldowntown
downtown and
and the
the location
location of
of Seun
Seun district.
district. Source:
Source:authors
authorsfrom
fromGoogle
Googlemaps.
maps.

Seun Sangga was the first official urban redevelopment project in Korea, and had been planned
Seun Sangga was the first official urban redevelopment project in Korea, and had been planned
to fulfill the demand for the accommodation of urban growth and to symbolize the Korean nation’s
to fulfill the demand for the accommodation of urban growth and to symbolize the Korean nation’s
development progress. It was the first of many large-scale urban projects promoted by the Korean
development progress. It was the first of many large-scale urban projects promoted by the Korean
government to showcase the country’s success in the pursuit of modernization. Significantly
influenced by contemporary Western urban design, the Seun Sangga building brought modernity to
central Seoul [46]. In fact, the meaning of Seun Sangga could be translated as "Concentration of the
world spirit in one site". The Seun Sangga building complex consists of eight rectangular elongated
single buildings, stretching from North to South. The buildings are divided by crossroads, but were
originally linked by pedestrian bridges on the upper levels. The first four floors of the building
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 6 of 14

government to showcase the country’s success in the pursuit of modernization. Significantly influenced
by contemporary Western urban design, the Seun Sangga building brought modernity to central
Seoul [46]. In fact, the meaning of Seun Sangga could be translated as “Concentration of the world
spirit in one site”. The Seun Sangga building complex consists of eight rectangular elongated single
buildings, stretching from North to South. The buildings are divided by crossroads, but were originally
linked by pedestrian
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 bridges on the upper levels. The first four floors of the building complex were
designed as a commercial area to house electronic markets, while floors 5 to 17 were designed as
apartments
designed asfor residential
apartments foruse. From theuse.
residential beginning,
From thethe building was
beginning, well accepted
the building by the
was well users and
accepted by
completely
the users and fulfilled the designated
completely purposes.
fulfilled the designated purposes.

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Aerial
Aerialview
viewofof Seun
Seun area
area with
with Seun
Seun Sangga
Sangga building
building and location
and location of subway
of subway lines
lines and and
stations
stations (left) [47]; View of Seun Sangga building from North to South, with a bridge crossing
(left) [47]; View of Seun Sangga building from North to South, with a bridge crossing the restored the
restored Cheonggye stream (in the middle of 2—the yellow rectangle—on the aerial
Cheonggye stream (in the middle of 2—the yellow rectangle—on the aerial view) in the foreground view) in the
foreground
(right) (right)
Source: Source: authors.
authors.

Most of the original residents left Seun Sangga twelve years after its construction, in 1979, and
Most of the original residents left Seun Sangga twelve years after its construction, in 1979, and
moved to other housing areas. The cause for this migration was the specific urban development
moved to other housing areas. The cause for this migration was the specific urban development
policy in Seoul, a lack of amenities in the Seun area, and the focus of the cities’ housing policy on
policy in Seoul, a lack of amenities in the Seun area, and the focus of the cities’ housing policy on
large-scale apartment development projects in the southern part of Seoul. Another eight years later,
large-scale apartment development projects in the southern part of Seoul. Another eight years later,
from 1987, a new very large electronic and digital market area was set up in the Seoul Yongsan
from 1987, a new very large electronic and digital market area was set up in the Seoul Yongsan district,
district, which resulted in competition with the original market in Seun Sangga, and in the political
which resulted in competition with the original market in Seun Sangga, and in the political will to
will to completely relocate the electronic market to Yongsan. In 1995, the city government published
completely relocate the electronic market to Yongsan. In 1995, the city government published a plan
a plan to demolish the Seun Sangga building completely. However, these plans were not realized and
to demolish the Seun Sangga building completely. However, these plans were not realized and until
until today, the Seun area consists of the largest area that houses the same building structure as that
today, the Seun area consists of the largest area that houses the same building structure as that during
during the completion of the Seun Sangga building in 1967. The City of Seoul has stated that the main
the completion of the Seun Sangga building in 1967. The City of Seoul has stated that the main
barriers for regeneration have been fire safety issues and the high building density of very old low-
barriers for regeneration have been fire safety issues and the high building density of very old low-rise
rise buildings (72% of the total buildings stock) in the Seun area [47]. Due to the traditionally narrow
buildings (72% of the total buildings stock) in the Seun area [47]. Due to the traditionally narrow
structure of the public streets, 36% [47] of the area is not accessible by cars and there is a considerable
structure of the public streets, 36% [47] of the area is not accessible by cars and there is a considerable
amount of neglected and vacant buildings. Currently, the upper floors of the Seun Sangga building
amount of neglected and vacant buildings. Currently, the upper floors of the Seun Sangga building are
are occupied and are no longer used for residential purposes. These floors house commercial
occupied and are no longer used for residential purposes. These floors house commercial functions,
functions, such as offices, small workshops, and small-scale industrial production. These uses also
such as offices, small workshops, and small-scale industrial production. These uses also support
support businesses in the area around the building and the huge electronic market, which is still
businesses in the area around the building and the huge electronic market, which is still present and
present and doing successful business in the lower floors of the Seun Sannga building. Today, the
doing successful business in the lower floors of the Seun Sannga building. Today, the Seun area is
Seun area is at the same time central and residual, accommodating diverse activities such as small
at the same time central and residual, accommodating diverse activities such as small and medium
and medium enterprises, workshops and industries, an electronics market, outdoor gaming areas,
and street stalls for food and goods (Figure 2).

3.2. The Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown Seoul

Since 1995, the demolition of the Seun Sangga building and the urban regeneration of the Seun
district have been repeatedly discussed by the city council and mayors. However, to date, only a
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 7 of 14

enterprises, workshops and industries, an electronics market, outdoor gaming areas, and street stalls
for food and goods (Figure 2).

3.2. The Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown Seoul

Since 1995, the demolition of the Seun Sangga building and the urban regeneration of the Seun
district have been repeatedly discussed by the city council and mayors. However, to date, only a
relatively small portion of the most northern part of Seun Sangga was demolished 2009. The demolition
was intended to be the starting point for the implementation of the “Urban Renaissance Master Plan for
Downtown Seoul”
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 in the Seun area, which is a visionary urban regeneration plan for the entire Seoul
Downtown launched in 2006. The development plan affects an area of around 7.2 km2 (as illustrated in
Figure
km2 (as3), with a population
illustrated in Figureof3),303,400,
with a more than 2241
population buildings,
of 303,400, moreandthan
a daily
2241traffic flow ofand
buildings, more than
a daily
1traffic
millionflowvehicles
of more (inflow
than +1 outflow) per day. (inflow
million vehicles According to the Urban
+ outflow) Renaissance
per day. According Master Plan,
to the the
Urban
vision for theMaster
Renaissance downtown Plan,regeneration
the vision is forto the
build a “competitive
downtown international
regeneration is to center
build embedded with
a “competitive
dignity of a 600-year-long
international center embedded historywith
and dignity
the vitalityof aof600-year-long
a dynamic culture at the
history andheart of Global
the vitality of Seoul” [48].
a dynamic
The goals
culture at of
thethe Urban
heart Renaissance
of Global Seoul” Master Plangoals
[48]. The are toof(i)the
increase
Urbanthe international
Renaissance competitiveness
Master of
Plan are to (i)
Seoul by promoting the design and fashion industry; (ii) attract tourists;
increase the international competitiveness of Seoul by promoting the design and fashion industry;(iii) create a pleasant urban
environment and cityscape
(ii) attract tourists; byathe
(iii) create creation
pleasant of north-south
urban environment green
andnetworks;
cityscape(iv) foster
by the the presence
creation of
of north-
cultural
south greenheritage; and (v)
networks; establish
(iv) a substantial
foster the presence infrastructure by utilizing
of cultural heritage; and (v)Korea’s advanced
establish IT. The
a substantial
strategy was adopted
infrastructure by utilizingin order
Korea’sto put in practice
advanced thestrategy
IT. The visions wasof strengthening
adopted in orderand tore-designing the
put in practice
four north-south
the visions axes crossing
of strengthening andthere-designing
downtown area, with
the four each enhancing
north-south one particular
axes crossing identity of
the downtown the
area,
downtown districts [49].
with each enhancing one particular identity of the downtown districts [49].

Figure 3.3.“Urban
Figure “UrbanRenaissance Master
Renaissance PlanPlan
Master for Downtown Seoul”Seoul”
for Downtown highlighting the four the
highlighting strategic
four corridors.
strategic
Source: authors elaboration from [49].
corridors. Source: authors elaboration from [49].

According to the Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown Seoul, the four north-south axes
(Figure 3) are assigned specific themes. Axis 1 is assigned with history, axis 2 is assigned with digital
media, axis 3 with green areas, and axis 4 is associated with design and creativity. Axis 1, the Historic
Corridor, includes Gwanghwamum Square, the King Sejong statue, different restored historic sites,
renovated Namdaemun Traditional Markets, and a pedestrian network of green walkways connecting
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 8 of 14

According to the Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown Seoul, the four north-south axes
(Figure 3) are assigned specific themes. Axis 1 is assigned with history, axis 2 is assigned with digital
media, axis 3 with green areas, and axis 4 is associated with design and creativity. Axis 1, the Historic
Corridor, includes Gwanghwamum Square, the King Sejong statue, different restored historic sites,
renovated Namdaemun Traditional Markets, and a pedestrian network of green walkways connecting
different touristic attractions including the restored Cheonggye stream. Axis 2, the Digital Media
Corridor, encourages the creation of a new urban culture shaped by digital media technology, the
creation of the “Digital Media Art District”, and the Downtown U-City project. Axis 3, the Green
Corridor, includes the demolition and replacement of the Seun Sangga building with a newly created
almost 100 m wide green corridor connecting the southern Mt. Namsan to the northern Changgyeong
Palace. Axis 4, the Creative corridor, implies the promotion of design and fashion industries within
the cultural landmark Dongdaemun Park with Dong Daemun Design Plaza (DDP) designed by Zaha
Hadid Architects. The creation of the strategic four corridors should be driven by the inception given
by different urban megaprojects, which should confer each district the identity and attractiveness for
further self-development. One of these megaprojects is the successful and world renowned restoration
of the Cheonggye Creek, resulting in the enhancement of spatial quality and livability in the concerned
neighborhoods, but consequently also a criticized plan that engendered a significant increase of real
estate values and important gentrification processes [5].

3.3. The Fallacy of a Green Utopia

One of the most extreme urban transformations within the four north-south development
axes proposed by the Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown Seoul is the extremely large
regeneration process completely reshaping the Seun district. The project is part of “Axis 3: Green
Corridor” and includes the construction of a green north-south axis, the “Restoration of NS-Green
Network” (Figure 4), which aims for “strengthening competiveness by redeveloping deteriorated and
stagnant areas” [47]. The aim of the complete demolition and remodeling of all of the existing built up
areas was the implementation of the following four main measures:

‚ Replacement of the 1 km long Seun Sangga building with an urban void in the form of a linear park.
‚ Reservation of 13%–15% of the total area for traffic infrastructure.
‚ Increase of the overall floor area ratio (FAR) in the redevelopment area. Implementation of an
average FAR of 7, by implementation of different FAR between 6, 8, and up to 8.5 in specific
development areas.
‚ Increase of the maximum building height to 90 m and in some areas to 125 m.

According to these redevelopment indexes, the green axis plan would result in a significant
densification of the area, which is currently mainly occupied by single-story and low-rise buildings
with less than 10 floors. The historical urban tissue surrounding the Seun Sangga and existing
structures would be completely obliterated.
Since the publication of the “Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown Seoul” in 2007,
none of the measures related to the “Restoration of NS-Green Network” in the Seun area have
yet been implemented. This is mainly due to the challenges related with framing an appropriate
consortium of enterprises supported by an institutional network with financial capacities that can
afford the high initial investment costs of such a green urban megaproject. Also many other plans for
urban megaprojects and green-driven speculations in Asia [38] suffered the consequences of the 2009
economic crisis [23] and have been accordingly not realized. In the case of Seoul two main elements
justifying the project failure can be identified: (i) competition with another urban mega-project, which
is the construction of the smart eco-city of Songdo in Incheon (see Figure 5) and (ii) the rise of local
protest against the Seun NS-Green Nework Plan proposal. Refering to (i): New Songdo City is a
1500-acre project, started in the year 2000, and located within a new Free Trade Zone in Incheon, on
a man-made island about 40 miles South-Eeast from Seoul city centre. This smart eco-city project
implementation of the following four main measures:
• Replacement of the 1 km long Seun Sangga building with an urban void in the form of a
linear park.
• Reservation of 13%–15% of the total area for traffic infrastructure.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 9 of 14
• Increase of the overall floor area ratio (FAR) in the redevelopment area. Implementation of
an average FAR of 7, by implementation of different FAR between 6, 8, and up to 8.5 in
specific cost
has an estimated development areas.Morgan Stanley has been the financial institution to make a first
of $35 billion.
• Increase of the maximum
direct cash investment among a group building height
of other to 90 m and
26 financial in some areas
institutions, whileto 125 m.
Cisco emerged as the
majorAccording
technologytoplayer
these developing
redevelopmentits “Cisco Global
indexes, the Center for Intelligent
green axis plan would Urbanization”, meaning
result in a significant
its control room will be the brain of the new city [50]. Sondgo is therefore one of the most
densification of the area, which is currently mainly occupied by single-story and low-rise buildings ambitious
global smart-eco
with less than 10city projects
floors. The[24], and itsurban
historical financial platform
tissue could have
surrounding the entered in competence
Seun Sangga with
and existing
other megaproject
structures would be proposed in Seoul.
completely obliterated.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Illustration
Illustrationofofthe
thevision forfor
vision Seun Sangga
Seun redevelopment
Sangga through
redevelopment the the
through “Restoration of NS-
“Restoration of
Green Network”. Source: author’s elaboration from [47,49].
NS-Green Network”. Source: author’s elaboration from [47,49].
8/14
While from another point of view, and at the same time, the redevelopment plans for the
Seun district have been also highly criticized by citizens and particularly by local stakeholders.
Entrepreneurs, consisting of local shop owners, as well as small and medium enterprises doing
business (mainly manufacturing and selling) in the Seun Sangga building and in the surrounding areas,
are neither interested in the realization of the plan for the Restoration of the NS-Green Network, nor in
the demolition of Seun Sangga building [47]. Their negative perceptions about the project are based on
the already suffered consequences of the previous Cheonggye Creek renaissance project, which induced
a real-estate value increase of up to 100,000,000 Korean Won per Pyong (20,000 Euro/m2 ) within the
project surrounding areas in Seun [5]. The social bias of such projects, and the induced gentrification,
is not to be perceived as an isolated phenomenon in space and time, but nested within the ambition of
increasing Seoul’s global cities ranking. Indeed, as mentioned in the case introduction, while property
prices in Seoul remained quite stable in the 1990s, an increase of up to the 28% between 2001 and 2003
and by 57% between 2004 and 2007 transformed Seoul from being considered a developing country, to
being within the top ranked global cities [52].
At the same time, Seun current entrepreneurs and inhabitants also complain about the proposed
densification, regarded as problematic since before the implementation of the plan, 300 people occupied
30,000 m2 of ground area (100 m2 /person), while after the implementation of the plan, 500 people
 of enterprises supported by an institutional network with financial capacities that can afford the high
initial investment costs of such a green urban megaproject. Also many other plans for urban megaprojects
and green-driven speculations in Asia [38] suffered the consequences of the 2009 economic crisis [23]
and have been accordingly not realized. In the case of Seoul two main elements justifying the project
failure can
Sustainability be8,identified:
2016, 33 (i) competition with another urban mega-project, which is the construction 10 of 14
of the smart eco-city of Songdo in Incheon (see Figure 5) and (ii) the rise of local protest against the
Seun NS-Green Nework Plan proposal. Refering to (i): New Songdo City is a 1500-acre project, started
would
in theoccupy
year 2000,3000 m2located
and ground within m2 /person).
area a(6new Free TradeSuchZonedensities
in Incheon, confirm the nature
on a man-made of the
island green
about
utopia
40 miles South-Eeast from Seoul city centre. This smart eco-city project has an estimated cost of $35site
plan in Seun and that regulations of UNESCO for the Jongmyo Royal Shrine World Heritage
(Figure 1),Morgan
billion. according to which
Stanley the maximum
has been building
the financial height
institution mayanot
to make firstexceed 62 minvestment
direct cash in the northern
among part
of athe Seunof
group area, was
other 26perceived as a barrier for
financial institutions, whileinvestments
Cisco emergedin realasestate developments
the major technology [47]. While
player
from our perspective,
developing its “Ciscothe increasing
Global Centerimbalance in business
for Intelligent opportunities
Urbanization”, meaning anditssocial conflicts
control (thatbe
room will will
the brain
emerge of thethe
between new city [50]. Sondgo
redeveloped is therefore
and existing one of the
surrounding urbanmost ambitious
areas), jointlyglobal smart-eco
with the city
displacement
of projects
traditional[24], and itsenterprises
smaller financial platform
and the could
culturalhave entered
heritage of in
thecompetence withcontribute
Seun area will other megaproject
to the long
proposed
term barrierin toSeoul.
a sustainable and renewed Downtown.

Figure 5. New Songdo City in Incheon. Songdo Eco City—Masterplan [51] and photos of the state of
Figure 5. New Songdo City in Incheon. Songdo Eco City—Masterplan [51] and photos of the state of
development in June 2015. Source: authors.
development in June 2015. Source: authors.

While from another point of view, and at the same time, the redevelopment plans for the
4. Discussion
Seun district have been also highly criticized by citizens and particularly by local stakeholders.
Entrepreneurs, consisting of
Beyond its technocratic andlocal shopefficiency
energy owners, as well as small
indicators, and redevelopment
an urban medium enterprises doing
project is also
business
said (mainly manufacturing
to be sustainable when it createsand selling) in the Seun
a harmonious livingSangga building and
environment, in the
reduces surrounding
social inequality,
andareas, are neither
improves qualityinterested in the realization
of life in general of theenabling
[7,9,53]. Factors plan forsocially
the Restoration of projects
sustainable the NS-Green
include:
Network, nor in the demolition of Seun Sangga building [47]. Their negative perceptions about
preservation of local characteristics, ability to fulfill psychological and physiological needs, townscape the
project are based on the already suffered consequences of the previous Cheonggye Creek renaissance
design, provision of social infrastructures, availability of job opportunities, and good accessibility [11].
Unfortunately, Asian experience in dealing with urban sustainability has been generally based on
9/14
new urban development projects, lacking integrated policy guidelines to tackle the socio-economic
(“behind greenwashing”) perspectives of urban sustainability [23,38,54].
Both because of the competency of building the new smart-eco New Songdo City in Incheon, and
the failure to address a proper partnership network for its financing while facing local oppositions,
the Seun Green Corridor megaproject faced years of delay in its development. In 2013, the Seoul
Metropolitan Government, specifically the Department of Managing Historical City, presented a
new proposal, for an Alternative Seun Development Plan [47]. This proposal is the result of a long
participatory process, consisting of 14 workshops, specialist consultations, a citizen symposium,
and face-to-face talks with local residents. In contrast to the large scale projects-based planning
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 11 of 14

perspectives of the Urban Renaissance Master Plan for Downtown Seoul and the Restoration of
NS-Green Network, the Alternative Seun Development Plan focuses on comparable small-scale
redevelopments, strengthening the specific characteristics of the Seun district and the surrounding
areas [47]. Such a paradigm shift has been also influenced by the regulations of UNESCO for the
Jongmyo Royal Shrine World Heritage site (see Figure 1), according to which the maximum building
height may not exceed 62 m in the northern part of the Seun area. Furthermore, the redevelopments
should be based on mixed residential and commercial use and also include different housing sizes,
including a considerable number of small apartments with less than 60 m2 . The original city structure
(roads and historical streams) should be conserved, the building height should be limited (see above),
and the development of green areas should be considered within a small-scale development, avoiding
the complete demolition of larger areas, and facilitating flexible upgrade and stepwise development.
The average FAR should be 6, but depending on the area it might be 100%–200% higher or lower [47].
According to the City of Seoul [47], the main challenges for a successful future redevelopment
of the area can be summarized and assigned to the following strategies, which are in contrast to the
previous large scale redevelopment plans:

- Strengthening rather than weakening of the existing small and medium downtown
businesses network.
- Respect the value of historical downtown structures instead of destroying the existing historic
urban tissue.
- Minimization of the burden for local businesses and residents to acceptable degrees instead of
stimulating social conflicts due to the relocation of existing workplaces and residences.
- Comparable small-scale redevelopments with limited building heights instead of large-scale
developments with high building heights.

Due to a system of economic incentives, such a bottom-up and small scale stepwise urban
renaissance could facilitate major longer term changes, attracting new businesses and tourists, and
revitalizing the district while maintaining its cultural and historical identity. Such an incremental
change of the neighborhood’s functional and environmental quality, could be seen as a new and key
learning experience for all the Asian cities. In the light of last decade Asian urbanization trends [55,56]
megacities investments went through the experimentation and technology driven eco-smart cities
prototypes, in search of the scalable, replicable and zero-emission ideal urban habitat for the future [25].
Such an increasing experience in modelling, planning, and building from an almost blank sheet leads
to a blind faith in urban design and technology. The gap here is, among others, the assumption that
the (Asiatic) traditional irregular small scale urban pattern and cultural heritage could inhibit future
development. However, European cases teach how urban regeneration has not to be only framed
through demolition and reconstruction practices, but recognizing the key role of places, culture, and
identities [57,58]. Aware that also European regeneration policies presented gaps and social stigma
because of their market driven approaches [59,60], the challenges posed decades ago from (urban)
sustainability have to be addressed not only through new green design, but retrofitting existing cities
and urban patterns.

5. Conclusions
This paper discussed some emerging issues within urban regeneration strategies through
megaprojects, and the interpretation of urban sustainability in Downtown Seoul. In the light of
recent Asian eco-cities projects, Seoul Metropolitan Area could be considered a leading example due
to the development of the New Songdo City in Incheon [24]. However, it has to be considered on
the one hand that the ambitious green and smart settlement New Songdo City has been planned and
built on land reclaimed from ecologically valuable tidelands. On the other hand, areas in Downtown
Seoul, such as the Seun district, suffer from aging built environments and the competency of new
centers within Seoul Metropolitan Area. The Seun Renaissance Master Plan has been analyzed and the
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 12 of 14

NS-Green Network restoration has been illustrated in order to tackle the greening imperative which
legitimates business as usual market-driven urban re-development practices. Charged of representing
an unsustainable greenwashing practice, potentially inducing social and economic gentrification
processes, the Seun Renaissance Master Plan has not been adopted and the hidden value of the
traditional irregular small scale urban pattern and its nested cultural heritage emerged as a new driver
for the incremental redevelopment of Seun. The Seoul City—Historical Town Centre Management
Department, presented a new proposal for an Alternative Seun Development Plan [47], emerging from
a long participatory process.
This paper builds on the emerging body of literature on gentrification induced by urban
greenwashing practices [27,61–63], or blind technocratic smart city solutions [64], in order to
demonstrate the need of a paradigm shift in Seoul planning practices when addressing urban
regeneration from the perspective of true sustainability. Aware of the current urban sustainability
fallacies [31,65,66], this case study calls on the need of integrated, complex, and stepwise urban
planning and design processes, avoiding the oversimplification of the “economic growth” through
greening paradigm. Indeed, social, cultural, and local economic sustainability must play a key role
within urban regeneration projects, and even more so in growing Asian cities.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by Bai Yang, Li Zehua, and Je June Hyung, Department of
Architecture, and funding by SungKyunKwan University “2015 University Research Support & Staff Support
Project” (2015ᄀᆼᄀ
ᅩ ᅪᄃ ᆨᄋ
ᅢᄒ
ᅡ ᆫᄀ
ᅧ ᅮᄌ ᅵ워
ᆫᄋ ᆫᄅ
ᅵ ᆨᄌ
ᅧ ᅵᄋ ᆫᄉ
ᅯ ᅡᄋᆸ). This research was also supported by funding received from the
ᅥ
Gran Sasso Science Institute, related to the project "Urban Resilience Thinking and Practices: Exploring Resilience
Trade-offs", that supported the fieldwork in Seoul.
Author Contributions: Both authors contributed equally to the content, the scientific framing and writing of
this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. United Nations, Department of Economic Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects:
The 2014 Revision; United Nation: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
2. Kim, H.M.; Han, S.S. Seoul. Cities 2012, 29, 142–154. [CrossRef]
3. Beaverstock, J.V.; Smith, R.G.; Taylor, P.J. A roster of world cities. Cities 1999, 16, 445–458. [CrossRef]
4. Hwang, J.-T. Territorialized urban mega-projects beyond global convergence: The case of Dongdaemun
Design Plaza & Amp; Park Project, Seoul. Cities 2014, 40, 82–89.
5. Lim, H.; Kim, J.; Potter, C.; Bae, W. Urban regeneration and gentrification: Land use impacts of the Cheonggye
Stream Restoration Project on the Seoul’s central business district. Habitat Int. 2013, 39, 192–200. [CrossRef]
6. Choi, K.B. Seoul’s Policies on Parks and Green Spaces. In Proceeding of The 3rd International Workshop
on ILTER Ecological Information Management in the East Asia-Pacific Region, Kookmin University, Seoul,
Korea, 16 Novermber 2007; KLTER: Kookmin University: Seoul, Korea, 2007; pp. 1–41.
7. Roberts, P. The Evolution, Definition and Purpose of Urban Regeneration. In Urban Regeneration: A Handbook;
Roberts, P., Sykes, H., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2000; pp. 9–36.
8. Inroy, N.M. Urban regeneration and public space: The story of an urban park. Space Polity 2000, 4, 23–40.
[CrossRef]
9. Couch, C.; Sykes, O.; Börstinghaus, W. Thirty years of urban regeneration in Britain, Germany and France:
The importance of context and path dependency. Prog. Plan. 2011, 75, 1–52. [CrossRef]
10. Monclús, F.J. Barcelona’s planning strategies: from ‘Paris of the South’ to the ‘Capital of West Mediterranean’.
GeoJournal 2000, 51, 57–63. [CrossRef]
11. Chan, E.; Lee, G.K. Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Soc. Indic. Res.
2008, 85, 243–256. [CrossRef]
12. McGregor, A.; McConnachie, M. Social exclusion, urban regeneration and economic reintegration. Urban Stud.
1995, 32, 1587–1600. [CrossRef]
13. Ng, M.K. Property-led urban renewal in Hong Kong: Any place for the community? Sustain. Dev. 2002, 10,
140–146. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 13 of 14

14. Keivani, R. A review of the main challenges to urban sustainability. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2010, 1, 5–16.
[CrossRef]
15. Hulsbergen, E.; Stouten, P. Urban renewal and regeneration in the Netherlands Integration lost or
subordinate? City 2001, 5, 325–337. [CrossRef]
16. Marshall, T. Urban planning and governance: Is there a Barcelona model? Int. Plan. Stud. 2000, 5, 299–319.
[CrossRef]
17. Shin, K.-H.; Timberlake, M. Korea’s global city: Structural and political implications of Seoul’s ascendance in
the global urban hierarchy. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 2006, 47, 145–173. [CrossRef]
18. Ha, S.-K. Housing renewal and neighborhood change as a gentrification process in Seoul. Cities 2004, 21,
381–389. [CrossRef]
19. Song, D.Y. Social characters of the industrial clusters in the Cheonggye districts. Study Environ. Sociol. 2003,
4, 166–190.
20. Kim, W.B. The viability of cultural districts in Seoul. City Cult. Soc. 2011, 2, 141–150. [CrossRef]
21. McCormick, K.; Anderberg, S.; Coenen, L.; Neij, L. Advancing sustainable urban transformation.
J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 1–11. [CrossRef]
22. Anguelovski, I. Neighborhood as refuge: Environmental Justice, Community Reconstruction, and Placeremaking in
the City; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014.
23. Sze, J. Fantasy Islands: Chinese Dreams and Ecological Fears in an Age of Climate Crisis; University of California
Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2014.
24. Shwayri, S.T. A Model Korean Ubiquitous Eco-City? The Politics of Making Songdo. J. Urban Technol. 2013,
20, 39–55. [CrossRef]
25. Yu, L. Low carbon eco-city: New approach for Chinese urbanisation. Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 102–110. [CrossRef]
26. Caprotti, F. Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, China. Cities
2014, 36, 10–17. [CrossRef]
27. Checker, M. Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of
urban sustainability. City Soc. 2011, 23, 210–229. [CrossRef]
28. Chen, J.-C. 4 greening dispossession. In Locating Right to the City in the Global South; Samara, T., Le, S.,
Chen, G., Eds.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2013; Volume 43, p. 81.
29. Roy, A.; Ong, A. Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2011; Volume 41.
30. Burton, E.; Jenks, M.; Williams, K. The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?; Routledge: London, UK, 2003.
31. Neuman, M. The compact city fallacy. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2005, 25, 11–26. [CrossRef]
32. Echenique, M.H.; Hargreaves, A.J.; Mitchell, G.; Namdeo, A. Growing cities sustainably. J. Am. Plan. Assoc.
2012, 78, 121–137. [CrossRef]
33. Hemphill, L.; McGreal, S.; Berry, J. An indicator-based approach to measuring sustainable urban regeneration
performance: Part 2, empirical evaluation and case-study analysis. Urban Stud. 2004, 41, 757–772. [CrossRef]
34. Munier, N. Methodology to select a set of urban sustainability indicators to measure the state of the city, and
performance assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 1020–1026. [CrossRef]
35. Mori, K.; Christodoulou, A. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City
Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 32, 94–106. [CrossRef]
36. Parkin, S. Contexts and Drivers for Operationalizing Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the ICE-Civil
Engineering; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2015; pp. 9–15.
37. Couch, C. Urban Renewal: Theory and Practice; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 1990; p. 187.
38. Shiuh-Shen, C. Chinese eco-cities: A perspective of land-speculation-oriented local entrepreneurialism.
China Inf. 2013, 27, 173–196. [CrossRef]
39. Camagni, R.; Capello, R.; Nijkamp, P. Towards sustainable city policy: An economy-environment technology
nexus. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 24, 103–118. [CrossRef]
40. Nijkamp, P. Improving Urban Environmental Quality: Socioeconomic Possibilities and Limits. In Urban
Poverty in Asia; Pernia, E.M., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
41. A.T. Kearney. 2012 Global Cities Index and Emerging Cities; A.T. Kearney: Chicago, IL, USA, 2012; p. 12.
42. Florida, R.; Mellander, C.; Gulden, T. Global Metropolis: The Role of Cities and Metropolitan Areas in the Global
Economy; Rotman School of Management University of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2009; p. 20.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 33 14 of 14

43. Demographia. Demographia World Urban Areas (World Agglomerations); Wendell Cox Consultancy: Belleville,
NJ, USA, 2013.
44. Cox, W. The Evolving Urban Form: Seoul. Available online: http://www.newgeography.com/content/
002060-the-evolving-urban-form-seoul (accessed on 9 August 2013).
45. Lee, T.-G. Sanierungspolitik Und Sanierungsmassnahmen in Berlin (Ost) Nach der Wiedervereinigung Und in Seoul;
TU Berlin, Department of Architecture: Berlin, Germany, 1998; p. 256.
46. Kwak, H.-J. A Turning Point in Korea’s Urban Modernization: The Case of the Sewoon Sangga Development;
Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.
47. Seoul City—Historical Town Centre Management Department. Seun Redevelopment Plan to Facilitate Change
(Draft); Seoul City: Seoul, Korea, 2013; p. 39.
48. Seoul Metropolitan Government. Urban Planning of Seoul; Seoul Metroplitan Government: Seoul, Korea,
2009; p. 87.
49. Seoul Development Institute. Thematic Maps of Seoul 2007; Seoul Development Institute: Seoul, Korea, 2007;
p. 191.
50. Alusi, A.; Eccles, R.G.; Edmondson, A.C.; Zuzul, T. Sustainable Cities: Oxymoron or the Shape of the Future?;
Working Paper 11-062; Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 2011.
51. Meinhold, B. Songdo IBD: South Korea’s New Eco-City. Available online: http://inhabitat.com/songdo-ibd-
south-koreas-new-eco-city/ (accessed on 22 November 2015).
52. Min, H.-S. Bukchon Conservation Project (2001–2004). Available online: https://seoulsolution.kr/content/
urban-regeneration-historic-neighborhood-bukchon?language=en (accessed on 7 March 2015).
53. Porter, L.; Shaw, K. Whose Urban Renaissance? An International Comparison of Urban Regeneration Policies;
Routledge: London, UK, 2009.
54. Shen, L.; Zhou, J. Examining the effectiveness of indicators for guiding sustainable urbanization in China.
Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 111–120. [CrossRef]
55. Chan, F.K.S.; Mitchell, G.; Cheng, X.; Adekola, O.; McDonald, A. Environment and urbanization Asia. SAGE
2013, 4, 301–323.
56. Marcotullio, P.J. Asian urban sustainability in the era of globalization. Habitat Int. 2001, 25, 577–598.
[CrossRef]
57. Healey, P.; de Magalhaes, C.; Madanipour, A.; Pendlebury, J. Place, identity and local politics: Analysing
initiatives in deliberative governance. In Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network
Society; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 60–87.
58. Colantonio, A.; Dixon, T. Urban Regeneration and Social Sustainability: Best Practice from European Cities;
John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
59. Carley, M. Urban partnerships, governance and the regeneration of Britain’s cities. Int. Plan. Stud. 2000, 5,
273–297. [CrossRef]
60. Degen, M.; GarcÍA, M. The transformation of the “Barcelona Model”: An analysis of culture, urban
regeneration and governance. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2012, 36, 1022–1038. [CrossRef]
61. Pearsall, H. From brown to green? Assessing social vulnerability to environmental gentrification in New
York City. Environ. Plan. C 2010, 28, 872–886. [CrossRef]
62. Anguelovski, I. From environmental trauma to safe haven: Place attachment and place remaking in three
marginalized neighborhoods of Barcelona, Boston, and Havana. City Community 2013, 12, 211–237. [CrossRef]
63. Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge
of making cities “just green enough”. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [CrossRef]
64. Gibbs, D.; Krueger, R.; MacLeod, G. Grappling with smart city politics in an era of market triumphalism.
Urban Stud. 2013, 50, 2151–2157. [CrossRef]
65. Godschalk, D.R. Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development
and livable communities. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2004, 70, 5–13. [CrossRef]
66. Campbell, S. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable
development. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1996, 62, 296–312. [CrossRef]

© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).