[Insight & Opinion] Where There Are Benefits from the 'Aging City Act', There Are Also Damages

Key Points and Controversies Surrounding the Aging City Act
Expansion of Targets Beyond 1st Generation New Towns Raises Fairness Issues
Safety Inspection Exemptions and Political Influence Spark Debate

Last month on the 7th, the government announced the key points of the Special Act on the Maintenance and Support of Aging Planned Cities (hereinafter referred to as the Aging City Act). This law was introduced to expand the scope of application beyond the ‘1st generation new towns’ after criticism arose that the ‘Special Act on Reconstruction of 1st Generation New Towns,’ a pledge by President Yoon, only granted benefits to the ‘1st generation new towns,’ raising issues of fairness. The scope was broadened to include ‘land sites over 1 million square meters that have been completed for more than 20 years in land development projects.’

Since granting benefits only to the 1st generation new towns by law raised significant fairness concerns, the target was expanded nationwide. However, just two days after the policy announcement, Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Won Hee-ryong held an additional meeting with the mayors of the 1st generation new towns, including the mayors of Seongnam, Goyang, Gunpo, Bucheon, and Anyang. This clearly shows that the reconstruction targets of this law are indeed the ‘1st generation new towns.’

Currently, apartments in Korea began to be built in earnest from the 1970s. Looking at five-year intervals, there are 100,000 apartments built between ’71 and ’75, 300,000 apartments built between ’76 and ’80, 400,000 apartments built between ’81 and ’85, 800,000 apartments built between ’86 and ’90, and 1.8 million apartments built between ’91 and ’95.

Among these, apartments built up to 1980 have mostly completed reconstruction except for some areas in Seoul (Apgujeong, Daechi, Banpo, Yeouido). Currently, reconstruction is being pursued in areas with apartments built between ’81 and ’85 totaling 400,000 units, and those built between ’86 and ’90, which are twice as many, including Seoul’s Nowon districts (Sanggye-Junggye), Seoul’s Yangcheon Mokdong, Gyeonggi Gwangmyeong, and Gwacheon. These combined amount to 1.2 million apartments targeted for reconstruction, and among the government’s plan to supply 2.7 million housing units, 520,000 are expected to come from redevelopment projects.

Given that apartments built between ’81 and ’90 have just barely begun reconstruction, the government’s plan to push for reconstruction of 1.8 million apartments built between ’91 and 2000 contains two main issues.

First is the controversy over the exemption from safety inspections. Current reconstruction requires safety inspections to assess the aging of buildings, but for the 1st generation new towns, reconstruction is practically impossible under the current aging standards. Therefore, the core of the law is to designate special maintenance zones to exempt safety inspections. However, if that is the case, it would be more logical to relax safety inspections rather than enact a law. Since the government’s relaxation of safety inspections in January still makes reconstruction difficult for the 1st generation new towns, reconsideration is needed regarding proceeding with the law by first creating a method to exempt inspections.

Second is fairness. If complexes included in special zones are exempt from safety inspections while those not included must undergo inspections, the designation or non-designation will depend on the political preferences of the heads of local governments (mayors) who designate the special maintenance zones. This could lead to significant controversy later. Above all, residents of the 1.2 million apartments built between ’81 and ’90, which currently comply properly with the existing city maintenance law, would be forced to stick to the original method simply because their number is smaller than the 1.8 million residents of apartments built between ’91 and ’95 designated as special maintenance zones. This could cause considerable conflict over apartment age and location.

Despite these issues, the government and ruling party are pushing forward with this law. The benefits are clear, while the damages are ambiguous. Since this project benefits over 3 million apartments nationwide, including the 1st generation new towns, it is expected to help in the 2024 elections. However, there are indeed damages. Cooperatives that strictly follow the current city maintenance law for aging housing and remodeling cooperatives working on remodeling aging housing will be adversely affected by the Aging City Act. Considering current trends in population and household changes, the massive supply of excess housing through zoning upgrades and floor area ratios of 500% must also be taken into account. It would be better to further discuss whether this is an issue that benefits only the specific complexes or if it structurally improves the city and society as a whole, and to proceed with proper legislation accordingly.

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