[Seoul, Now] Seoul’s Dilemma: The ‘Private Urban Complex Development’

원본보기 아이콘

The Seoul Metropolitan Government is facing a dilemma over a new system. This is because the privately-led Urban Complex Development Project (Minbok), set to be fully implemented from June 2026, is showing signs of disrupting the existing urban redevelopment landscape.

Minbok is based on the “Act on Support for Urban Complex Development,” which was enacted in February 2024. In January, the Seoul Metropolitan Government promulgated the relevant ordinance, completing preparations for implementation. Minbok is divided into two types: growth hub-oriented and residential-oriented. The growth hub-oriented type has already been brought to the forefront as the core means of the “Gangbuk Renaissance 2.0” project, which Mayor Oh Sehoon of Seoul announced on February 19.

The issue lies with the residential-oriented type. This system upgrades aging areas within 500 meters of subway stations to quasi-residential zones and raises the base floor area ratio (FAR) to up to 1.4 times the legal maximum, that is, up to 700%. The benefits far outweigh those of any existing urban redevelopment plan. Integrated reviews also allow for shortened approval periods. With trust companies and REITs serving as project executors, chronic disputes such as internal conflicts within associations are less likely to occur.

This naturally leads to a question: why would anyone choose the existing projects? The ecosystem for urban redevelopment projects in Seoul, which the city has meticulously built, is extensive. There are various pathways depending on regional conditions and project characteristics, including station area revitalization, long-term station area lease housing, expedited integrated planning, and Moa Town. Currently, 122 long-term station area lease housing projects are underway.

However, if the residential-oriented Minbok offers higher FARs and faster procedures in the same station areas, there is ample incentive for existing project stakeholders to switch. Terminating a project and restarting means collecting signatures of consent all over again from the beginning. This inevitably delays supply.

An official from the Seoul Metropolitan Government acknowledged this point, stating, “If the residential-oriented type is much more advantageous than existing urban redevelopment projects, more sites will terminate their current projects and switch, causing confusion in housing supply.” Therefore, instead of encouraging or restricting Minbok, Seoul is currently setting operational standards to ensure fairness with existing projects. The city is also considering aligning the quasi-residential FAR with the approximately 500% level maintained in current station area projects. Additional measures include strengthening requirements for access to arterial roads and expanding public contributions to raise the bar for eligibility.

The overall direction is understandable. However, there is a key point to consider here. If the Seoul Metropolitan Government sets operational standards that lower the benefits of Minbok to match those of existing projects in the name of fairness, Minbok loses its reason for existence. The rationale for introducing Minbok was to address the limitations of public-led approaches and the slow progress and low business viability of existing urban redevelopment projects. Undermining the strengths of a system specifically designed as an alternative to fit the mold of existing regulations is contradictory.

Of course, one cannot ignore concerns about inconsistency in urban planning or the risks of haphazard development. Issues such as sunlight rights infringement, overloading of infrastructure, and landscape damage are real. However, these should be addressed by selectively designating project sites based on physical conditions like roads, transportation, and scenery, and by meticulously designing public contributions.

The real concern for the Seoul Metropolitan Government may not be technical but political. If Minbok becomes more prevalent, flagship projects such as station area development, expedited integrated planning, and Moa Town-which the city has invested significant effort in-may lose their luster. This creates the burden of potentially having to replace its own policies.

However, the criterion for housing policy decisions should not be the survival of existing systems, but the actual supply effect. If existing systems have limitations, it is right to replace them with better ones. Competition between systems ultimately increases supply efficiency. This is why, when establishing operational standards for Minbok, the Seoul Metropolitan Government should focus solely on whether it can provide more homes, more quickly, and in better locations for Seoul citizens, rather than on political pros and cons. Systems do not exist to protect anyone's legacy.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.