You are here

Publications

A Study on Improvement of Policies for ‘Seoul Cultural District’

Author: 
Do-Sam RhaㆍJung-Hyun LeeㆍChan-Seob Oh
Views: 
7

Abstract

The objective of this study is to review the outcomes of the cultural district policy of Seoul and to present suggestions for its improvement. Currently, Seoul Metropolitan Government is operating two cultural districts: Insa-dong and Daehak-ro. Insa-dong and Daehak-ro were designated as cultural districts in 2001 and 2004 respectively. Although they have been operated according to the comprehensive management plans as stipulated by the relevant laws, these two cultural districts haven't had much success. Specifically speaking, despite all outward appearances of growth, Insa-dong and Daehak-ro had to undergo a considerable change in their regional characteristics after being designated as cultural districts.

What triggered these unfavourable changes despite all the management plans established under laws and periodic reviews done every three years? This study analyzes the institutional factors that caused such changes.

This study argues that as the cultural district policy was introduced and operated with a focus on Insa-dong from the outset, it became difficult to apply this model in other regions. In other words, the focus of the management plan has been put on facility maintenance in order to protect traditional businesses, and this made inevitable the changes in the regional characteristics of the areas which were designated as cultural districts. The failure to encourage residents to act as the protector of regional characteristics was another factor that triggered these changes. Based on these findings, this study aims to thoroughly analyze the way the cultural district policy has worked so far and present some suggestions for the future implementation of this policy. The key suggestions are as follows.

First, the scope of the cultural districts needs to be expanded. As the cultural district policy of Seoul has been operated with a focus on Insa-dong, only two regions - Insa-dong and Daehak-ro - were designated and have been operated as cultural districts so far. It is necessary to foster an institutional environment which facilitates designation of more regions as cultural districts, and thereby to establish the cultural district policy as one of the region management policies.

Second, the focus of the cultural district policy should be put on activities rather than on facilities. The cultural district policy has been operated with a focus on facility maintenance so far. However, the role of the facilities in the regional community has changed significantly. This is the reason why the cultural district policy should be revised so that it can encourage residents' activities, rather than putting focus on facility maintenance.

Third, the main actor of the cultural district policy needs to be changed as well. Currently, Seoul Metropolitan Government controls the whole process related to the cultural districts. For more effective implementation of the cultural district policy, the Seoul Metropolitan Government needs to give greater discretionary power to subordinate local governments, and shift its focus to supporting and monitoring the relevant efforts of these subordinate authorities. In addition, it is necessary to consider introducing some policies such as the preliminary cultural district policy to encourage more local governments to actively develop cultural districts so that more regions with diverse characteristics can be designated and managed as cultural districts.

 

Contents

01 Research outline

1_Research background and objective

2_Research focus and methods

 

02 Cultural district policy

1_Overview

2_Policy structure and operating system

 

03 Cultural district policy of Seoul

1_District designation

2_Designation details

3_Current status of management

 

04 Outcomes and causes of the problems

1_Outcomes

2_Causes of the problems

 

05 Discussion about measures for improvement

1_Review of preceding researches

2_Expert forum

06 Suggestions for improvement

1_General direction

2_Specific measures

3_Revision of the relevant laws

 

07 Conclusion

 

References