Local conflicts and issues often reflect larger, deeper issues in a society. Two recent proposed changes to landmarks in the center of Seoul have stirred intense opposition in nearby neighborhoods. The first is a proposal to turn the overpass near Seoul Station into a park-like walkway similar to the High Line in New York. The second is a proposal to restore Sajikdan Altar to its original state. The proposals come from the long-standing mindset of turning Seoul into a more attractive city through greenery and historical restoration.

In the case of the Seoul Station overpass, many merchants in nearby Namdaemun Market are opposed to closing it to auto traffic because it will make access to the market more difficult. They have criticized the city government for developing the plans without neighborhood involvement. The city has countered this argument by stating the overpass was scheduled for demolition because of its age and turning it into a pedestrian walkway is better than demolition.

In the case of Sajikdan Altar, people were shocked to learn that restoration plans, which were developed by the Cultural Heritage Administration, call for the demolition of the Jongno Public Library, the Children’s Public Library and the Maedong Elementary School. At various points during the 20th century, these structures were built on the grounds of the shrine, and over time, they have become an integral part of the neighborhood. The Cultural Heritage Administration’s stance reflects the strong nationalistic impetus to “reclaim” Korean culture from the perceived damages inflicted by Japanese imperialism. Restoration is the natural architectural manifestation of this push.

The two cases deal with different structures that have different meanings, but the common thread is the conflict between planners and “local people” affected by the plans. This reflects the larger problem of conflict management among stakeholders in communities in Korea.

Both cases follow a typical pattern in which a person or a group becomes attracted to a public works project. Those involved in promoting the project believe in its inherent goodness and thus have trouble understanding why others would not agree. That potential existence of a counterargument goes ignored in the planning.

“Local people,” meanwhile, get word of the plans from the media and feel alienated because their opinions were not considered in the planning stages. Others immediately oppose proposals that affect their lives, particularly proposals such as closing schools and libraries. Talk among neighbors often turns to organized opposition, usually in the form of a demonstration or press conference.

The problem is clear: planners need to involve “local people” from the early stages of planning. In the current paradigm, however, that is difficult because defining “local people” and ascertaining majority opinion is not easy. Elected representatives are not always adept at reflecting majority views, a problem that befalls all democracies.

The other problem, of course, is that wider needs sometimes conflict with local needs. Seoulites and tourists, for example, would benefit from an attractive pedestrian walkway near Seoul Station. The same holds true for a restored Sajikdan Altar with more green space. The benefits of these projects would thus be widespread, which helps explain why the planners are so enthusiastic about them.

A nuanced solution through consensus is in order. To do so, value needs to be attached to what is changed. Turning a street into a pedestrian space can have positive and negative effects on a neighborhood, while closing a school has only negative effects. The same holds true for libraries and other public facilities, such as hospitals. Replacing the lost public facilities, of course, changes the dynamics of the debate because new facilities can benefit the community more provided that they are conveniently located. From this perspective, demolishing the libraries and the elementary school around Sakjikdan Altar without the guarantee of replacing them is a community-destroying act.

Ascribing historic value to structures is difficult, but Sajikdan Altar is one of the oldest historical sites in Seoul. The king visited it twice a year for ceremonies to pray for a good harvest. Historical value by itself, however, does not mean that the site must be restored to its original state. Many important historic sites around the world exist in partial and often altered form. What has vanished and been changed adds new layers of history that enrich the site.

Before going further, the powers that be must reach out to “local people” by involving them in the decision-making process. A required first step is to take community destruction off the table and focus on ideas that benefit the community.

By Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. ― Ed.