[Takryucheongron] Housing Supply Policies That Encourage Overconcentration in the Seoul Metropolitan Area Are Not Acceptable

Over the past 100 years, the average annual temperature in Seoul has risen by 2.4 degrees Celsius, which is three times the global average. On the 15th, the government mentioned lifting the Greenbelt, a development-restricted zone, as a housing supply measure despite opposition from Seoul city. However, facing strong social backlash, it reversed its stance, stating that "the Greenbelt should not be lifted and must be preserved for future generations." Although somewhat delayed, this is a reasonable decision. However, the Tae-neung Golf Course site owned by the Ministry of National Defense, pointed out by President Moon Jae-in, is also part of the Greenbelt. The same applies to the 3rd New Town development. Moreover, there are still proponents of development who argue for the necessity of developing damaged Greenbelt areas. This stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of the Greenbelt. The Greenbelt is a tool for managing urban growth to prevent indiscriminate urban sprawl and urban conurbation, and to conserve the urban environment. Therefore, just because an area is not mountainous or partially damaged does not mean it lacks value as a Greenbelt; even rice paddies, fields, and land plots serve roles and functions as part of the spatial concept of the belt.

A healthy and sustainable city is cone-shaped. It increases development density based on abundant infrastructure in the city center while restricting development as one moves outward. This creates wind corridors that reduce fine dust and heat waves across the city. Unlike city centers covered with cement and concrete, these areas act as permeable layers that absorb rainwater and prevent flooding. They also function as green infrastructure necessary for urban health and safety crisis responses (such as temporary spaces for infectious disease responses like Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19). Therefore, no matter how much of a golf course it is, it is better than a large apartment complex. There can be no exceptions to the principle of preserving the Greenbelt.

The same applies to the 3rd New Town. The Greenbelt in the Seoul metropolitan area not only conserves the urban environment but also significantly contributes to balanced national land development for coexistence with non-metropolitan areas. Due to these positive functions, this system has been adopted as an urban growth management tool not only in South Korea but also in many countries such as the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, and the United States. Of course, there are countries where the Greenbelt system has failed. Japan indiscriminately developed new towns and endlessly expanded urban railways. As its population declined and aged, reducing the working population, the Greenbelt system disappeared, leaving enormous fiscal burdens for future generations. President Moon stated that South Korea would not follow Japan’s path, but despite unprecedented circumstances such as the advent of a global low-growth era, population cliff, super-aging society, and declining working population, indiscriminate urban sprawl is being pursued through the development of the 3rd New Town and the Seoul Metropolitan Area Express Railway (GTX). As a result, based on the cost per capita for accommodating residents in the 1st New Town, the 2nd New Town will cost six times more, and the 3rd New Town twelve times more. Promoting partial lifting of the Greenbelt or constructing the 3rd New Town to expand housing supply and curb Seoul’s housing prices is a rehash of a failed policy.

The reasons for lifting the Greenbelt in South Korea have mostly been related to government housing supply policies. According to the new housing supply rate, Seoul already exceeded 100% as of 2017. Meanwhile, our rental housing ratio is 5%, about half of the 10% seen in advanced countries. Since 1999, South Korea has lifted the Greenbelt citing the supply of public rental housing, but after 8 to 10 years of rental, these units have been sold as general housing, driving up housing prices. The government must no longer lift even a single square foot of the Greenbelt to promote housing supply policies that encourage overcrowding in the metropolitan area. Furthermore, President Moon’s principle of preserving the Greenbelt should not be limited to Seoul but applied uniformly nationwide. To this end, Greenbelt management should be transferred from the current Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to the Ministry of Environment.

Maeng Ji-yeon, Natural Ecology Committee Member, Korea Federation for Environmental Movements (Ph.D. in Urban Planning)

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.