Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Smart and Sustainable City Case of Urban Transformation of Seoul
Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Seoul Former Director-General of International Urban Development Collaboration, Seoul Metropolitan Government
WHY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT? WHY CITY?
Global Urbanization with Rapid Population Growth
2
Why Cities? – Poverty & Climate
• Cities are the engine of growth to eradicate poverty and key to sustainable world to solve climate change problem.
• Cities cover only 2 percent of land area of the world. However, they hold 50 percent of population and are responsible for up to 70 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions [and production]. (UN-HABITAT, 2011, Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements )
• "Cities are responsible for the majority of our harmful greenhouse gases. But they are also places where the greatest efficiencies can be made. This makes it imperative that we understand the form and content of urbanization so that we can reduce our footprint," said Joan Clos Executive Director of UN-HABITAT.
Global Urbanization is Surging
2010 2030 2050 2010-2050
World
Pop (Billion) 6.90 8.32 9.31 2.41
Urban Pop (B) 3.56 4.98 6.25 2.69
Urban Rate(%) 51.6 59.9 67.2 -
Developed
Countries
Pop 1.24 1.30 1.31 0.07
Urban Pop 0.96 1.06 1.13 0.17
Urban Rate(%) 77.5 82.1 85.9 -
Developing
Countries
Pop 5.66 7.03 8.00 2.34
Urban Pop 2.60 3.92 5.12 2.52
Urban Rate(%) 46.0 55.8 64.1 -
Asia Urban Pop 1.85 2.70 3.31 1.46
Africa Urban Pop 0.40 0.74 1.26 0.86
S. America Urban Pop 0.57 0.59 0.65 0.08
Magnitude and Speed of Urbanization do matter
Two
Chinas
Nine
USA’s
5
The world’s megacities, 2007 and
2025
Benefit of Agglomeration
• Why people agglomerate?
Agglomeration Economies Productivity* increases by – Trade
– Economies of Scale
– Division of Labor
– Knowledge
Environmental Protection
Current U$
Constant 2005 U$
1960 156 1,107
1970 292 1,782
1980 1,778 3,926
1990 6,642 8,829
2000 11,948 15,162
2010 22,151 22,236
* Productivity is the fundamental basis of quality of life.
Invisible Beauty of Seoul: Green by “Proactive” Urban Planning
Cost of Congestion
• Dis-economies: Challenges to be solved
can’t be solved “naturally” – Congestion
– Pollution
– Water supply shortage
– Waste
– …
Jakarta Metro Area (Pseudo Urbanization has been happeinng)
10
Technology alone can’t stop Global Warming
Impact = f(Pop, Prod, Tech, etc)
Poverty / Slum
12
God made the Country,
Man made the Town. (in order for more people, all
together, to live better).
*word by William Cowper
Three Major Challenges and Corresponding Goals:
Maximize the Benefit and Minimize the Cost of Urb.
14
Poverty / Low Productivity
Pollution / Climate Change
Inequality
Growth
Green
Justice
City is the key; Smart and Sustainable City Building
BACKGROUND ON SEOUL & KOREA
15
16
17
18
Seoul Today
19
Seoul, approx. 50 years ago
SEOUL TRANSFORMATION BEGAN From non-urban or pseudo-urban to city
20
Explosive Growth of Seoul
• 270,000 people per year (22,000 people per month) for 3 decades, 1960-1990
출처: 주택정책반세기
출처: 서울역사박물관
School
Shanty houses
Shanty houses with common toilets by Cheonggyechoen
Shanty houses down to Han River (Flood)
Shanty houses climbing up to mountains
Urban Land & Housing Solution Until mid 1960’s
• Restoration Housing, Prosperity Housing, Hope Housing, City Housing, Public Housing, Welfare Housing, …
• Welfare Housing: an affordable housing for mid- and low-class
청량리 부흥주택 (1966) 용두동 후생주택 (1958)
23
Urban Land & Housing Solution until mid-1960’s
24
3,000 vs. 300,000
1 housing unit per 100 people
(existing housing shortage of 1M aside)
Housing Supply and Demand early 1960’s Problem #1: Supply Shortage
Problem #2: Land Consumption, Sprawl, Transportation, public service
CHANGE OF APPROACH From sprawl to compact; Smart and Sustainable Seoul
26
Spatial Pattern: Two ways to go
27
Explosion of Pop.
Low- or hyper-density Large land consumption and/or Inefficiency
High-density Small land consumption
Market (individual freedom)
Planning + Market
Personal vs. Social Interest Tension btw landlords vs. tenants
Tension btw selected vs. non-selected
Sprawl and/or Chaotic Over-crowd Not sustainable
Controlled Development
Uncontrolled Expansion
Compact Transit-Oriented
Eco-Friendly
Figures from UN-HABITAT (2013)
Which one is greener?
28
(a) (b)
29 Source: UN-HABITAT (2013)
Invisible Beauty of Seoul: Green by “Proactive” Urban Planning
Walkable City
• Spatial Framework (Land Use, Density, Location, Public Space) does matter
31
Source: UN-HABITAT (2013)
MASTER PLAN, 1966 Making a plan for sustainable future development 1962-1965
32
33 1988 2005 1957 1972
Began with Urban Planning Seoul Metro Area Master Plan (1965)
Visioning the future: Time, space, people, scope were not limited by then situation as was the future growth
7 New Towns
7 New Towns
Master Plan (1965) Master Plan (Revised 1970)
Change
New Town Pop.
Plan Area New Town
Pop.
Plan
Eunpyung 400 7.6 Eunpyung 300 Down
Sungin 400 14.9 Miah 300 Down
Mangwoo 150 6.9 Cheongryangri 400 Up
Cheonho 300 8.6 Cheonho 400 Up
Yungdong (Gangnam) 600 59.0 Yungdong(Gangnam) 600 Same
Yungdungpo 800 8.6 Yungdungpo 800 Same
- - - Gimpo 200 New
Total 2,650 105.7 Total 3,000
34
(unit: 1,000 persons, km2)
Source: Kwon (2013)
HOW TO REALIZE: GANGNAM & BUNDANG CASES
Land Readjustment, 1960’s-1970’s
37
Transforming Land from non-urban to Sustainable Urban Form
38
Road is not only surface for cars but also artery (public space for public services) for a city. Water, Sewage Energy , Gas, Electricity Communication Heat, Cooling, Subway, etc.
Land Readjustment: Transforming Land Valuable Build Together, Benefit Together (BT2)
94
1,300 W/㎡
36.8%
63.2%
6,200 W 9,750 W/㎡
Expansion of Boundaries
Date Area(㎢)
1946. 10. 18 136.00
1949. 08. 13 288.35
1963. 01. 01 613.04
1973. 07. 01 627.06
1988. 01. 01 605.40*
*the area did not shrink, but was merely readjusted by survey
Seoul doubled its
administrative area in
1963 to resolve the urban
problems, including
southern area of Han
river
(In Korean, Gang means
river and Nam means
south)
Gangnam was a New Town outside Seoul
39
Gangnam
▲ 강남 1974년
Gangnam Development
• Envisioning vs. Forecasting
• 30 years of development from an idea to completion
Source: Lee (2006)
▲ 강남 1988년 ▲ 강남 1957년
Urban Planning: Vision, Framework and Process 1976년 1995 1987년
출처:서울연구원 (2009)
Government Planning and Private Development
출처:서울시 (2013)
1972년 1988 1980년
사진출처: 서울역사박물관, 2011, 강남 40년 영동에서 강남으로
▲ AID아파트 미국 국제개발처(AID)자금을 들여와 논현동과 삼성동에 아파트를 지어 분양함
▲1971. 12. 28 공무원아파트 준공(자료 : 국가기록원)
Gangnam Development
Phasing Issues due to Financing
• Set Land Use Framework as the Ground of Future Growth
• Secure Public Space for Public Services (e.g., Transit, Water)
• Set Growth Limit for Protecting Nature from Sprawl and Citizens from Disasters (e.g., Flood)
• Provide Urban Land and Infrastructures for the Life, Work, and Play of Citizens
Achievements
45
Pop in 1960: 2.45 M
1970 1976 1981
Population (Thousand) 5,509 7,150 7,500
Income per cap (KRW) 138,810 189,580 268,240
Urban Land (㎢) 130 201.7 261.7
Housing (Unit) 593,370 863,970 1,300,00
0
Hosing Supply Rate (%) 56.8 56.3 56.1
Housing Area per cap (㎡) 6.8 8.2 10.1
Water Prod (10T t/day) 111 210 302
Road Area (㎢) 34.85 44.57 55.69
Road Rate (%) 9.5 12.0 15.0
No. of Cars 61,000 170,000 315,000
Subway (km) - 26.5 64.0
Green/Park per cap (㎡) 4.04 5.73 6.60
Ⅱ. 토지구획정리사업의 전개과정 및 유형화 도출
46
Sum By Gov’t By Association By Housing Corp
No of Sites Area(㎢) No of Sites Area(㎢) No of Sites Area(㎢) No of Sites Area(㎢)
Sum 58 140 51 131.2 4 5.8 3 3
140㎢ (40% of Urban Area in Seoul) developed through Land Readjustment
unit : year
1930’s 1940’s 1950’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s Avg
Avg 19.8 19.4 13.8 7.0 6.2 6.3 4.4 7.4
Public 19.8 19.4 13.8 7.0 6.5 6.3 4.2 8.3
Assoc. 5.7 5.6 6.8 4.5 5.6
출처 : 토지구획 정리사업의 고찰과 개선방안, 김동욱, 국토연구원
자료 : 건설교통부 도시관리과(1995. 6. 현재)
140㎢ (40% of Urban Area in Seoul) developed through Land Readjustment
47
1st Phase Total
Area 50 K㎡
Pop 1.2 M
Housing 292,000
(Condo 281,000)
5 New Towns in 1990’s In the late 1980s, as the situation of housing shortages became worse and the existing available land for large-scale urban development was nearly exhausted, the population began to spillover beyond the green belt. Faced with limitations in land supply for urban development, the central government began to build several new towns in the Seoul Metropolitan Region including Bundang in Sungnam, Ilsan in Goyang, Pyeongchon in Anyang, Sanbon in Gunpo, and Jungdong in Bucheon.
Land Use Plan
48
Total % Bundang Ilsan Pyung- chon
Sanbon Jung- dong
Total 50,140 100.0 19,639 15,736 5,106 4,203 5,456
Residential 17,230 34.4 6,350 5,261 1,931 1,811 1,877
Commercial 3,866 7.7 1,640 1,233 247 178 568
Public 29,044 57.9 11,649 9,242 2,928 2,214 3,011
Road 10,388 20.7 3,860 3,290 1,187 639 1,412
Green 9,548 19.0 3,810 3,705 801 649 583
Gov't 676 1.3 166 92 150 100 168
School 2,402 4.8 732 584 343 327 416
Etc. 6,030 12.0 3,081 1,571 447 499 432
(unit: thousand ㎡, %)
Bundang
49
Urban Development Protects Environment
Seoul – Smart and Sustainable City
CHENGGYECHEON RESTORATION Urban Regeneration
51
52
7/2/2015 53
Cheonggyecheon, 1960’s
7/2/2015 54
7/2/2015 55
7/2/2015 56
Cheonggyecheon Elevated Highway
57
7/2/2015 59
Rising Congestion and Its Cost
• Decreasing Average Travel Speed: 30.8 km/h in 1980 -> 13.6 km/h in 2004
• Increasing Socio-economic congestion cost: over KRW 7 trillion in 2007 (five times that of 1991)
58
Motivations
• Safety: Fundamental Solution to Safety Problem Related to Cheonggye Expressway and Covering Road (re-building express highway was scheduled in 2001)
• Environment: Creation of Nature and Human-centered Environment-Friendly City Space
– Provision for citizens’ clear river and relaxation space by restoring Cheonggyecheon as a natural stream with bright sunshine and clean air and by developing the nearby area as an ecological park
• Culture: Recovery of Seoul’s 600-year-old Historical and Cultural Importance as Capital
– Restoration of cultural relics in Cheonggyecheon such as Gwanggyo(Bridge) and Supyogyo(Bridge); Reincarnation of traditional cultures including Supyogyo(Bridge) tread and lotus lantern festival; Reestablishment of Seoul’s history and cultural identity by creating cultural space linked to cultural relics within 4 great gates; Utilization of Cheonggyecheon as representative cultural tour resource in Seoul
• Economy: Induction to Revitalization of Downtown Area’s Underdeveloped Area
– Inducement to reorganize the industrial structure around the underdeveloped Cheonggyecheon area and invigorate the depressed downtown economy due to the lagging development for some 50 years since the Independence.
7/2/2015 60
Before-Restoration Situation
• Characteristics
– located in densely populated area
– the area nearby is deteriorated
– dried : natural water circulation system is blocked
– various interest group
• Functions
– flood control
– environmental and ecological space
– historical and cultural place
7/2/2015 61
Key Issues in Engineering & Design
7/2/2015 62
Lake type
Natural type
Urban type
preferable
Types of Waterfront
Key Issues in Engineering & Design
7/2/2015 63
An example of modification:
storm water diversion
Urban type Natural type
Requires pumping station and maintenance facilities
Diversion tunnel
Sustainable ?
Key Issues in Engineering & Design
7/2/2015 64
Allocation of Space Ecological space or a space for human ?
?
Space for Human
Ecological Space
“limited access” “free access”
optimal allocation
Left side : for human activity
Right side : mainly for ecology
Construction Process
7/2/2015 65
Cross-section of Cheonggyecheon
7/2/2015 66
67
Urban Regeneration through Cheonggyecheon Restoration
Green: Env. Sustainability
68
Cheonggyecheon: Place for People and Activity
7/2/2015 69
Cultural Assets and Green (Pedestrian) Network
7/2/2015 70
Change in Pedestrian Volume
before (April 2003) and after (April 2006)
7/2/2015 71
Weekdays
Sunday
Revitalizing Old Downtown
7/2/2015 73
Growth: Competitive City
74
New Developments
Office Rent Increase
Usage Changes: 44 during 2002~2005년; 895 during 2006~2009년
Land Price Increase
Cost
7/2/2015 75
Project Time Scale Cost ($) Cost/km ($)
Cheonggyecheon
Seoul, Korea 2003-2005 5.8 km
345M
(KRW 380B) 59M
The High Line
(Section 1,2)
New York, NY
2003- 1.6 km 152M 95M
The Big Dig
Boston, MA 1982-2007 12 km 22B 1,833M
Sanjicheon
Jeju, Korea 1997-2002 474 m
33M
(KRW 36B) 69M
SMART CITY
76
What is Smart City?
Increase the Benefit of
Agglomeration
Decrease the Cost of Congestion
Infrastructure Technology
Information Technology
Next Technology
Smart City
Quality of Life
Industrial Age
Information Age
Urbanization Phase 1
Urbanization Phase 2
Urbanization Phase
Infrastructure Technology
Information Technology
Major Tech
Quantity (Capacity) Quality Major Issue
Development of Urban Transportation System in Seoul Phase 1: Quantity - Infrastructure Technology
1. Buses
2. Roads
3. Rails (Subways)
Development of Urban Transportation System in Seoul Phase 2: Quality - Information Technology
Smart management
Achievement: Output
• the speed of bus in the peak time increased by 30% on average (10 ~ 80% depending on the section)
• The citizens’ public transportation fee decreased by 30% on average.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
Achievements: Outcome
• Seoul’s PM10 decreased from over 75㎍/㎥ in 2002 to 44㎍/㎥ in 2013. NO₂ also decreased from 0.037ppm in 2001 to 0.033ppm in 2013.
• Public transit ridership showed an increase by 5.5% during the period of July 2004 to June 2005.
• The satisfaction rate increased from 14.2% to 36.9% after the reform. Major factors for the satisfaction were ‘discounted transfer fare’ and ‘integration of subway and bus.
Mode Share
Phase 1: Quantity Infrastructure Technology
Tukdo
0.5 M m3/d Amsa
1.6 M m3/d
Gui
0.25 M m3/d
Kang Book
1.0 M m3/d
YDP
0.6 M m3/d
Kwang Am
0.4 M m3/d
[Tukdo WTP] [YoungDeungPo WTP]
[Gui WTP] [AmSa WTP]
Phase 2: Quality Information Technology
Flow monitoring system : 437 flow meters RWR Increase
DB for pipes of 9,844km
DB of 1.44 million
attributes of the facilities
GIS system
- Production cost reduction: Source water, chemicals, energy
※ 1.64 M. $ of direct cost reduction by RWR 1% increase
Reduced direct cost
- Reducing construction cost and capacity
· 9 WTP’s with 7,300,000㎥/day (1999)
· Closed 4 WTP’s and supply reduction by 1,900,000 ㎥/day
Reduced indirect cost
Monitoring water flow using flow meters installed at water supply
points, districts, mid-scale blocks, reservoirs, and booster stations.
Systematic and scientific management of data
Appropriate decision making and utilities investment
Scientific maintenance of utilities
Category 1960 1970 1980 19891) 2012
Pop. Served (1,000) 1,462 4,738 7,756 10,507 10,442
Water post (1,000) 107 329 724 1,5042) 2,024
Service rate (%) 59.8 85.6 92.7 99.3 100
Ave. production (103 m3/d) 30 81 223 448 321
Supply (L/d/capita) 163 171 395 426 303
Pipe network (km) 564 6,518 13,942 18,084 13,801
RWR (%) 38.2 55.63) 51.5 55.2 94.3
Output
1) Office of Waterworks started its service, 2) as of 1990, 3) as of 1969
Quantity Resolved w/ Infrastructure Technology
Quality Resolved w/ Information Technology
Urban Planning Information System (UPIS) Foundation
E-Governance
• More Participation and Bi- or Multi-lateral Collab. (Democracy)
• Faster Process and Response (Efficiency)
• Transparency
SUMMARY
89
Urbanization is an Opportunity
Source: Bloom and Khanna (2007)
1966 Seoul Metro Area Master Plan: Sustainable Development Guide to
Compact, Transit-oriented, Eco-Friendly Seoul
90
1960
1975
1990
Greenbelt
Old Center
Pop: 2.4M Density: 91 인/ha Area: 268 km2 Priority: Spatial Framework, Public Space, Water
Pop: 6.9M Density: 110 인/ha Area: 600 km2 Priority: Urban Land, Urban Rail, Sewage
Pop: 10.6M Density: 175 인/ha (Net Density 265 인/ha) Area: 600 km2 (developed Land 400 km2) Priority: Compact, Smart, Urban Transit, e-Gov
(Density, Location)
Environment Protection by Proper Development
(Roads, Schools, Parks, etc.)
1M Creative Economy
People and Nature 10M Industrial Economy Quantity and Efficiency
Decline
Regeneration by Creative of (Public) Space
92
Cheonggyecheon
Destruction Re-creation
What to do to become a Smart and Sustainable City
1. Supply urban land (new towns, if necessary) 2. Transform land from non-urban to urban form
3. Secure Public Space (Roads, Green, Schools, Public facilities, etc.) • Quantity – at least 40% of urban land • Quality – Good Network
4. Urban Structure: Sub-centers (new towns) and Public Transportation 5. Density: 1st 100 people/ha (public transp.), 2nd 200 people/ha (walk) 6. IT Technology for Smarter City 7. Green, Blue (Water), and Sustainability for our children
7/2/2015 91
Action without Vision is only passing time, Vision without Action is merely day dreaming, but
Vision with Action can change the world.
Dream don’t work, unless YOU DO.
– Nelson Mandela –
June 2015
Myounggu Kang, Ph.D.
Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Seoul
Former Director-General of International Urban Development Collaboration, Seoul Metropolitan Government
