The real estate market is challenging, and so are housing policies.
황희, a member of the Democratic Party, proposed using decommissioned buses as temporary housing for young people but later withdrew the idea. A few days later, he suggested a mixed-use development combining housing with educational institutions. This proposal faced backlash from the education sector, with some suggesting that he should first build housing above the National Assembly where he works.This criticism reflects the standards the government has applied to Yongsan Park.
Kim Yoon-deok, Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, stated that areas like officer quarters, military apartments, and the former Defense Acquisition Program Administration site, which have lost their green space function, could be utilized. He also clarified that not all of the park would be developed.
If the criteria for development are based on current usage, potential for functional repurposing, transportation conditions, and supply effects, what about the National Assembly, which is set to move to Sejong? Or sites like the National Cemetery, Seoul Forest, Seoul National University, Seocho Legal Town, and Gimpo Airport? These areas are also essential public spaces in Seoul, and repurposing them could yield significant housing quantities.
However, even if they are not the primary function, the buildings and plazas at the National Cemetery serve part of their memorial function. The visitor center, sports facilities, and outdoor stage at Seoul Forest are also necessary for public use. Removing parts of these spaces would disrupt their overall function.
If we apply the same standards used for Yongsan Park, should we judge all buildings and sites in Seoul solely on their potential for development? How much are existing aging government buildings and parking lots being utilized, and when can they be developed? Are there any public institutions or national universities that could be repurposed? Comparing supply quantities, project timelines, relocation costs, and infrastructure expansion costs, where does Yongsan Park rank?
With today's AI technology, it would be possible to overlay land and building registries across Seoul and conduct such comparisons within hours. There is no reason to prioritize Yongsan Park and overlook other sites. A comprehensive survey is necessary to clarify the rationale behind selecting Yongsan as the first candidate.
Land designated for parks shouldn't be repurposed for housing.
Yongsan Park is a long-term project aimed at converting land previously occupied by military bases and various buildings back into parkland. If land with existing buildings is deemed suitable for housing, there would have been little land available to create parks from the start.
The government has mentioned sites that have not yet been developed into parks. If we judge them solely based on their current state and conclude they have lost their green space function, we risk undermining the future value of the park.
In 2021, the Ministry of Land expanded the area of Yongsan Park from 2.43 million square meters to 3 million square meters. The former Defense Acquisition Program Administration site and military apartments were intentionally included in the park. Plans are in place to create green spaces connecting Namsan and Yongsan Park, and to incorporate cultural and artistic functions into valuable existing buildings.
By placing land incorporated into the park five years ago on the housing construction list simply because it is not yet green space, the government has altered the definition of green space to suit its needs.
The argument that even a portion of the 3 million square meters of Yongsan Park could accommodate housing while still preserving significant green space is worth considering. There is a substantial need to provide youth housing in the heart of Seoul, where jobs and transportation converge.
The government must disclose the impact on the planned green space and alternative sites. It should also reveal the net increase in housing, supply timelines, cleanup costs, and project expenses. The locations of officer quarters, military apartments, and the former Defense Acquisition Program Administration site should be marked on a map, along with the buildings that will remain.
Without such comparisons, merely repeating that areas have “lost their green space function” raises suspicions that the government predetermined Yongsan as the first choice and adjusted the criteria accordingly.
The government must clarify its housing plans before proceeding.
Amid discussions of Yongsan Park and youth housing, vague figures of 10,000 to 20,000 housing units have been floated. However, the government has not provided details on the types of housing, rental prices, duration of residence, or floor area. There are also no visible plans for management fees or deposit protection measures. Consequently, even if youth housing is established, it remains unclear what kind of living conditions will be provided for young people.
While the government focuses on supply numbers, the energy-zero housing project completed in 2017 in Nowon District offers a new direction. This 121-unit complex, which combines seven-story apartments with two- to three-story townhouses, has demonstrated significant reductions in management costs through external insulation, triple-glazed windows, and solar and geothermal systems. Investing more in initial construction costs can turn eco-friendly housing into a policy that lowers living expenses for young people.
It is hoped that the government does not intend to limit youth housing to just studio apartments. Even young people who arrive in Seoul with little money will eventually find jobs after education or vocational training and become contributing members of society. A life-cycle model that accommodates these individuals should also be considered. Youth housing should not be temporary accommodations that push people out once they reach a certain age; it should be the first step in starting a life in a community.
Simply placing many small homes in a desirable location like Yongsan does not guarantee quality youth housing. As the Blue House stated, while it is important to utilize valuable land effectively, there must also be consideration for other possibilities and the content of the housing itself.
The government has yet to answer what kind of homes it plans to build. Is it truly creating homes where young people can live for an extended period? Or is it merely a signboard for the next real estate policy that states, 'We also provided housing in Yongsan Park'?
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.