Building Post-war Seoul, 1952-1986
: Civil Engineers, Urban Planners, Architects, and Recreating an Ideal City
The Korean War was a transformative event that not only brought destruction to Seoul but also played a vital role in resurrecting the city as the ideal capital for a new independent nation. In the subsequent three decades, planners, fueled by hope and enthusiasm for development, envisioned and built the framework of post-war Seoul in diverse ways.
This study sheds light on the ‘actors’ and ‘processes,’ revealing the conflicts and competitive dynamics among planners who pursued different goals and methods for the ideal city from the 1950s to the mid-1980s in Seoul. It aims to illustrate how the direction of urban planning and development in post-war Seoul underwent repeated changes based on the competitive dynamics they encountered in their struggle for influence.
This study has taken notice of the fact that the history of modern urban planning has been predominantly described with a focus on ‘outcomes’ such as plans, regulations, and the physical appearance of cities. Consequently, it has not adequately explained the reasons behind the actual urban development showing tendencies of changing in a specific direction or lacking consistency. From this, it was discovered that the group labeled as ‘urban planners’ has, through their perspective and criteria, excluded other planners with differing views from the narrative of urban planning history. Additionally, the periodization and perceptions within urban planning history seem to revolve around the activities of these urban planners. In line with this, planners such as civil engineers and architects were reinstated, and the period from 1952, when discussions on the reconstruction of the capital began through their participation, to 1986 when the development of the expanded Seoul city area and the Han River was completed, is recognized as a crucial era in shaping and completing the framework of post-war Seoul.
During this period, it was divided into three distinct phases based on the patterns of conflicts and reconciliation among planners. The research findings, examining the urban planning discussions, implementation processes, and changes in the city for each period, are as follows.
From 1952 to 1965, there was a period during which technical bureaucrats from the colonial era and urban planners engaged with the Korean Planners Association formulated decentralized urban plans under the influence of the existing city planning. The civil engineers, following the colonial-era urban planning, pursued a low-density urban landscape through systematic land use classification and securing systematic open spaces. Additionally, they aimed to disperse the population by creating suburban residential areas along the east-west axis and sought continuous urban development between Gyeongin regions. On the other hand, urban planners, aiming to overcome this, pursued balanced national development based on economic geography and sought to create suburban residential areas through concentric city expansion. The divergent urban planning logics were partially reconciled in the mid-1960s, emphasizing a linear city structure within the concentric city structure. However, this plan proved to be ineffective, leading to subsequent criticism.
From 1966 to 1974, a dynamic period unfolded where not only the existing group of planners but also a new group emerged, including overseas-educated architects and their followers, foreign urban planning consultants. This diverse group critiqued and transformed established urban planning during this dynamic era. They sought to change the city by concretely designing the manipulation of the physical environment through ‘urban design.’ They proposed the concept of ‘megastructures,’ which densely incorporated various urban functions, seeking to transform existing plans and establish new urban centers. They supported the construction of elevated highways that traversed the city, contributing to the shift to a linear city structure. Rather than constructing suburban residential areas, they aimed for a high-density mixed-use ‘new city center’, applying this concept to the development of Yeouido. In the early 1970s, with the establishment of the Comprehensive National Development Plan and the installation of green belts, urban planners regained control of concentric city planning. Consequently, residential areas were developed in suburban areas, but in Yeouido, a new urban residential type, ‘high-rise apartment complexes,’ emerged, sustaining the trend towards a new city center. During this period, the landscape and structure of Seoul began to change through the innovative attempts of architects.
From 1975 to 1986, there was a period in which urban development conditions were constrained due to security crises, leading to adjustments in the visions of various groups and a shift in the direction of Seoul’s urban planning. This period played a pivotal role in shaping the current landscape and structure of Seoul. In response to the depopulation policy, there was a departure from the single-nucleus concentric structure, and Seoul adopted the newly proposed concept of a ‘three-core city’ by overseas-educated architects. With the development of a new city center in Yeongdong, the rapid completion of a high-density mixed-use city through the transplantation of precedents like Megastructures and high-rise apartment complexes took place. After the older generation of planners stepped back, the new generation of urban planners began to align their visions with those of overseas-educated architects, aiming for ‘multi-core city’ planning by eliminating the central focus from existing concentric city planning. The architects and urban planners initiated the Han River Comprehensive Development with a shared understanding of nature, serving as a premise for restructuring the city’s layout. Consequently, Seoul shifted away from the single nucleus and old east-west axis, adopting a city structure with three cores centered around the Han River.
This process of post-war Seoul’s development reflects several significant aspects. Firstly, it marks the initiation of privatizing urban planning. Instead of being shaped by a centralized order led by the government, the city was formed in a multifaceted manner, with various parts of the extensively expanded city being shaped by various private planners. Moreover, it represents the encounter between international urban planning theories, with a time lag, and the unique context of Seoul as a third-world city amidst cultural generational shifts after the Korean War. On one hand, this was a process of determining whether the form of the city would be shaped by intangible philosophies, principles, and beliefs from the top, or if it would be decided based on the physical facility construction technology from the bottom. It was a kind of struggle between prescriptivism and descriptivism in finding urban planning methods. An important achievement during this period was not only the field of ‘urban planning,’ but also the emergence of ‘urban design,’ a new role for architects that corresponded to it. Finally, it illustrates a fundamental transformation in the city’s structure, adapting to the post-war era’s new political and economic demands. In this way, the various plans of the Seoul Metropolitan Government were formulated by diverse private planners, each with different perspectives, and this reveals the inherent tension stemming from the competitive dynamics among these actors.
Furthermore, this study is significant in examining architects’ ideas that have not been adequately addressed as key contributors to the reshaping of Seoul’s landscape and structure after the Korean War. However, this study has limitations as it selectively focuses on key events related to urban landscape and structural reshaping from a specific perspective. Future research is expected to delve more extensively into the ideas and practices of various planners not covered in this study, revealing a richer understanding of the forces that have shaped Seoul into the vast and intricate city it is today.
(scheduled for publication in February 2024)