"Need to Redefine Urban Regeneration Policy Goals for Revitalizing Declining Areas"

[Asia Economy Reporter Noh Kyung-jo] It has been argued that Korea's urban regeneration requires a fundamental restructuring at a reset level. The concept and terminology of 'urban regeneration ≠ redevelopment' are incorrect, and the focus should be on the essential goal of urban regeneration: 'revitalization of declining areas.'

According to a report titled "Resetting Korea's Urban Regeneration: Exploring New Urban Regeneration Policy Directions Based on the Trial and Error of the Past 10 Years," recently published by the Korea Research Institute for Construction Industry on the 24th, the urban regeneration projects that began in 2013 have seen massive public resource investment but have fallen short of expectations. In some areas, groups opposing urban regeneration have formed and hung banners against it.

A panoramic view of Geumil-eup, Wando-gun, Jeollanam-do, selected as a target area for the Urban Regeneration New Deal Project (Specialized Regeneration Type) / Photo by Wando-gun

The Korea Research Institute for Construction Industry identified the limitations of the first-generation urban regeneration over the past decade as ▲lack of policy effectiveness ▲lack of sustainability after the end of public funding ▲insufficient private sector participation and investment. The reason these limitations emerged was attributed to 'confusion over the concept and policy goals of urban regeneration.' It was pointed out that the government itself held incorrect perceptions such as 'regeneration is not redevelopment' or 'urban regeneration is a good method applied in advanced countries, while redevelopment is a bad method typical of developing countries,' which fundamentally misaligned the approach.

Lee Tae-hee, a senior researcher at the institute, explained, "The essential purpose of urban regeneration policy is the revitalization of declining cities. The means to achieve this include both preservation-type methods and full demolition methods. However, in the first-generation urban regeneration, the purpose and means were reversed, and flexible project methods suitable for the target area's conditions were not applied." He analyzed that even in places where full redevelopment was feasible due to good project viability, methods such as home repairs and alleyway improvements were applied, resulting in unsatisfactory outcomes.

Researcher Lee emphasized, "For successful second-generation urban regeneration, the first step is to redefine the concept and policy goals of urban regeneration and to reset the roles of the public and private sectors in urban regeneration."

He added, "Especially, urban regeneration projects that focus solely on public interest and proceed only with public funds, as is currently the case, inevitably face limitations in scale, sustainability, and ripple effects. It is necessary to actively involve the private sector from planning to execution in areas where the private sector can perform better or where private investment is needed."

He advised that public support methods should strategically utilize public resources as leverage to attract private investment, rather than having the public sector make upfront investments and then passively waiting for private investment to follow.

Furthermore, he stated, "For efficient and systematic urban regeneration, it is necessary to completely restructure the urban spatial planning system. Instead of overly idealistic optimism and concepts, practical and reality-based private participation system design is required."

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