Sejong: A Comparative View into the New Administrative City’s Successes, Failures, and Anticipated Challenges

ABSTRACT

Putrajaya’s sister city, Sejong is a new administrative city located 120 km from Seoul in the centre of South Korea with a similar vision and function. Much like its sister city, many government offices have been moved to Sejong to address the intense congestion that plagues Seoul. This paper will comparatively discuss how the two cities take different approaches to placemaking, population management, and urban transportation in order to meet similar needs and assess their successes and failures.

1 Youngsang Kwon, Sejong Si (City): are TOD and TND Models Effective in Planning Korea’s New Capital, in Cities, (2015), 242-257; Jeongmuk Kang, A Study of the Future Sustainability of Sejong, South Korea’s Multifunctional Administrative City, Focusing on Implementation of Transit Oriented Development, (2012); Hee Sun Choi and Alan Reeve, Legal Identity in the Form-Production Process, Using as a Case Study the Multifunctional Administrative City Project (Sejong) in South Korea, in Urban Design International, (2015), 66-78. INTRODUCTION

Sejong is a new administrative capital located 120 km south of Seoul in the heart of South Korea with a bold strategy to move government offices out of Seoul in order to reduce the intense congestion and pollution that plagues Seoul. By building a new city in the centre of the country away from the Seoul Metropolitan Area, the government hopes to spread the population and industries from Seoul and promote more balanced development in the country as a whole. Little has been published to date on the City of Sejong itself. Scholarship on Sejong has generally been focused on discussions of the master plan and the built form, particularly its ring- shaped axis, the public transit system, and its urban aesthetic.1 Research beyond the city as a physical entity such as discussions of the social and cultural aspects of the city are largely unexplored. Because the city is still under development, conditions are subject to change, and it is therefore difficult to make conclusions about the city. There is, however, merit to a focused study of Sejong as it is “the first grand urban planning project for South Korea in the twenty-first century and provides opportunities to showcase South Korea’s expertise in planning and constructing new towns”.2 Discussion of current issues and speculation of future challenges can provide useful insight not only for Sejong as an individual city but also as a model for future projects in South Korea. This paper discusses key themes in the Sejong City project while drawing comparison to its sister city, Putrajaya, as a new city development with a similar vision and function. The first section will discuss Sejong’s Local Identity and its effect on the built form. The second section will discuss Sejong’s unique Family Planning Policies and how they aim to address the broader national issue of declining fertility. And finally, the third section will discuss Sejong’s Public Transit System and its anticipated challenges and shortcomings.

3 Sarah Moser, New Cities: Opportunities, Visions and Challenges Cityquest KAEC Forum 2013 Summary and Analysis Report, (2014).

4 Adam Cutts, New Cities and Concepts of Value: Planning, Building and Responding to New Urban Realities, (2016).

5 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Spotlight on four Korean Cities”, in Urban Transport Governance and Inclusive Development in Korea, (2017), 95.

6 Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Agency (MACCA), Sejong Korea: Multifunctional Administrative City, (2014).

7 Sarah Moser, “Putrajaya: Malaysia’s New Federal Administrative Capital”, in Cities, (2010), 285-297.

8 Sarah Moser, “Putrajaya: Malaysia’s New Federal Administrative Capital”, in Cities, (2010), 291. BACKGROUND

Putrajaya began development in 1995 with the intent to move government ministries out of Kuala Lumpur to decrease congestion and consolidate them into one location to increase efficiency. Putrajaya was designed to be a well-planned, aesthetically pleasing, and environmentally friendly new capital that is meant to foster a sense of Malaysian national identity.3

Sejong, Putrajaya’s sister city, is being developed with similar a similar vision and function in mind. The city is located 120km south of Seoul in the heart of South Korea and is designed to be the new hi-tech, eco-friendly administrative capital of South Korea.4 Seoul constitutes only 0.6% (605.2km2) of South Korea’s territory, and yet it is home to one-fifth of the population (10 million), and almost half (25 million) if you consider the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA).5 It is clear that development is South Korea is incredibly uneven with the population highly concentrated in Seoul’s urban area. In response to this, government offices including the Prime Minister’s office as well as nine ministries and 36 government agencies have been moved to Sejong to reduce congestion in Seoul and promote more balanced development in South Korea.6

LOCAL IDENTITY: URBAN IMAGINARY AND REALITY

Putrajaya has a distinct urban aesthetic, albeit an unexpected one. The city’s architecture draws on Islamic motifs for inspiration. What is surprising is the particular sect of Islam that Putrajaya has chosen to emulate. Malaysia is a Muslim majority country with a vernacular architectural style that is known for its wood carving and building methods, but that is not the aesthetic that designers have employed in Putrajaya.7 Instead, the city’s design turns towards the Middle East for inspiration. Putrajaya’s architecture is characterized by domes, arches, and geometric patterns that are common in the Middle East. By blending “High Islamic” aesthetics and hi-tech architecture, Putrajaya projects the state’s vision of Malaysia as a progressive Muslim nation.8 Putrajaya’s local identity is contradictory. The city is part of a larger state building project meant to promote the image of a Muslim nation, but instead of turning towards its own local Islamic architectural traditions, Putrajaya alternatively looks towards Islamic styles from other countries to form the base of its state project. Despite these mixed influences, Putrajaya’s Islamic architecture sends the clear message that the city is founded on an Islamic national identity. Unlike Putrajaya, Sejong lacks a clear concept of place and local identity. This is not to say that Sejong is totally devoid

of cultural symbolism. The city was named after King Sejong the great who is remembered for creating hangul, the Korean writing system and all of the streets in Sejong are to be named from words of exclusively Korean origin.9 The use of language in place names makes it clear that Sejong’s placemaking strategy is to foster a sense of uniquely Korean identity. Where the development falls short is in the tangible aspects of the city. Planning documents and promotional material such as those from the Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Agency lack any sense of a unique Korean aesthetic and instead present a more generic globalized style.10 Choi and Reeve examine this tension between local place identity and the homogenization of urban form due to globalization. They argue that for planners of new cities, the challenge is “to reconcile locally informed place-making, with an ideological imperative to be globally significant”.11 By conducting surveys with planning officials as well as current and potential residents of Sejong, they found that planners and residents alike preferred designs that conform to the existing topography as well as street patterns and architecture that resembles those found in the old districts of Seoul. Choi and Reeve argue that features like these would better represent a Korean place-identity because they are rooted in local, social, and historical context.12 This finding is in stark contrast to Sejong’s built form. Instead of adapting to the existing topography, developers levelled the land and instead of drawing on vernacular styles, buildings in Sejong embody a more homogenized “global” aesthetic. Interviews with planning officials reveal that decision makers saw local identity as part of the city’s image and brand rather than “something that might influence design and development”.13 Despite a positive response to a vision of Sejong that is inspired by local culture, Sejong’s planners do not see the cultivation of place-identity through locally informed architecture as an important factor in urban design. Putrajaya’s aesthetic emerged from contradictory intentions. The city is part of a state building project that aims to rebrand Malaysia as a progressive Muslim country, and yet it draws on aesthetics from other countries for inspiration rather than cultivating a sense of identity from its own local styles. The rationality behind this may be confusing, but what is clear is that Putrajaya is able to create a distinct sense of place identity through its built form. Sejong, however, does not. Drawing on local culture is not seen as a relevant consideration when designing the built form of the city. It is instead reduced to a marketing strategy to promote the city’s brand. Choi and Reeve conclude that new cities distance themselves from local culture that is seen as outdated in favour of following global trends. In the struggle between globalized homogeneity and local identity, a homogenous urban form wins out.

9 Jeongmuk Kang, A Study of the Future Sustainability of Sejong, South Korea’s Multifunctional Administrative City, Focusing on Implementation of Transit Oriented Development, (2012); Youngsang Kwon, Sejong Si (City): are TOD and TND Models Effective in Planning Korea’s New Capital, in Cities, (2015), 242-257.

10 Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Agency (MACCA), Sejong Korea: Multifunctional Administrative City, (2014).

11 Hee Sun Choi and Alan Reeve, Legal Identity in the Form-Production Process, Using as a Case Study the Multifunctional Administrative City Project (Sejong) in South Korea, in Urban Design International, (2015), 68-69.

12 Choi and Reeve, 75-76.

13 Choi and Reeve, 74.

14 Department of Statistics Malaysia, Federal Territory of Putrajaya at a Glance. Retrieved from Department of Statistics Malaysia, (2018).

15 Statistics Korea, 2017 Population and Housing Census, (2017).16 Pjevovic, “Cities and Climate Change”, 19.

16 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Spotlight on four Korean Cities”, in Urban Transport Governance and Inclusive Development in Korea, (2017).

17 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Fertility Rates, (2022).

18 Statistics Korea, Final Results of Birth Statistics in 2017, (2017).

19 Isabella Steger and Sookyung Lee, “A New Capital Built from Scratch is an Unlikely Utopia for Korean Families”, in Quartz, (2018). FAMILY PLANNING POLICIES: SUBVERTING BROADER TRENDS

Despite starting development a decade earlier than Sejong, Putrajaya continues to struggle to attract residents. Putrajaya’s target population is 350,000 but as of 2018 its population sits at 90,000.14 Unlike its sister city, Sejong has a population of almost 300,000 as of 2017, well on its way to its 2030 goal of 500,000. 15 Sejong’s growing population is surprising considering that the opposite is observed at the national level. Figure 1 shows that South Korea has the lowest fertility rate amongst OECD countries.16 According to the OECD, a fertility rate of two is considered the minimum for sustaining a population, so Korea’s low fertility is huge cause for concern.17 Strikingly, according to Statistics Korea, Sejong has the highest fertility rate in the country at 1.67 children per woman. Sejong’s fertility rate is higher than the national average at 1.05 whereas Seoul holds the lowest birthrate in the country at 0.84 children per woman.18 Steger and Lee attribute this phenomenon to Sejong’s family friendly environment and policies.19 Many young families are attracted to the city’s low cost of living and abundant green spaces. In addition, Sejong’s policies are geared towards the wellbeing of new mothers. The local government runs a facility called the Happy Mom Centre which “provides a range of mental and physical support services for pre- and

Figure 1 Fertility Rates of OECD Countries (OECD, 2016)

post-natal needs, and offers services for fathers too, such as cooking classes”.20 The government also offers other maternity services such as “assigning a caregiver to support new moms for 10 days after birth at a heavily subsidized rate, which includes childcare assistance and food preparation. The city also provides classes on lactation and childcare. In addition to the central Happy Mom facility, each apartment complex also has its own daycare center”.21 In addition to these maternity services, Sejong city also awards 1.2 million KRW to every couple for each child they have to further encourage residents to have children.22 Moving to Sejong to start a family is not without its disadvantages though. Relocating is costly and the financial burden of moving on top of the cost of having children may prove too high for some families. Despite this, Sejong boasts the highest population growth in the country and likewise, the city’s reputation as a family friendly city continues to grow.23

20 Isabella Steger and Sookyung Lee, “A New Capital Built from Scratch is an Unlikely Utopia for Korean Families”, in Quartz, (2018), 6.

21 Steger and Lee, 6.

22 Steger and Lee, 7.

23 Statistics Korea, 2017 Population and Housing Census, (2017).

24 Ross King, “ReWriting the City: Putrajaya as Representation”, in Journal of Urban Design, (2007), 117-138.

Figure 2 Fertility Rates in Korea (Steger & Lee, 2018)

TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN: LOOKING AHEAD

Putrajaya’s master plan is typical of a master planned new capital. Like many capital cities (Brasilia, Washington, Canberra), Putrajaya boasts a grand linear axis around which everything else is organized. The 4.2km stretch of pavement bisects the city and connects the Prime Minister’s office to the convention centre.24 Sejong radically deviates from this trend. Unlike other capital cities Sejong’s master plan rejects a ceremonial axis and instead features a circular axis.25 Instead of concentrating functions around a central business district which causes congestion during peak hours, Sejong will have a large central park. Key functions such as government offices, universities,

25 Jeongmuk Kang, A Study of the Future Sustainability of Sejong, South Korea’s Multifunctional Administrative City, Focusing on Implementation of Transit Oriented Development, (2012); Youngsang Kwon, Sejong Si (City): are TOD and TND Models Effective in Planning Korea’s New Capital, in Cities, (2015), 242-257.

26 Youngsang Kwon, Sejong Si (City): are TOD and TND Models Effective in Planning Korea’s New Capital, in Cities, (2015), 242-257.

27 Sarah Moser, “Putrajaya: Malaysia’s New Federal Administrative Capital”, in Cities, (2010), 285-297

28 Youngsang Kwon, Sejong Si (City): are TOD and TND Models Effective in Planning Korea’s New Capital, in Cities, (2015), 242-257.

29 Jeongmuk Kang, A Study of the Future Sustainability of Sejong, South Korea’s Multifunctional Administrative City, Focusing on Implementation of Transit Oriented Development, (2012).

30 Youngsang Kwon, Sejong Si (City): are TOD and TND Models Effective in Planning Korea’s New Capital, in Cities, (2015), 242-257. Figure 3 Locations of Sejong’s Facilities and Central Park (MACCA)

and medical centres will be distributed along the ring axis as shown in Figure 3. By decentralizing key functions, planners hope to prevent the congestion patterns observed in cities with a more centralized morphology. This decentralization of institutions also reflects Sejong’s ideology of democracy and balanced development where the decentralized design parallels the decentralization of administrative functions away from Seoul.26 Putrajaya’s master plan includes an extensive public transportation system in order to prevent the traffic and pollution that plagues Kuala Lumpur. However, this planning has failed to meet people’s needs. Putrajaya is heavily reliant on cars because the wide streets and lack of shade in Malaysia’s hot climate make the city unwalkable.27 Sejong’s master plan, if executed well, may be able to avoid replicating this problem. Sejong’s ring road has been criticized for being inefficient compared to the simplicity and efficiency of a grid system, but planners hope to improve efficiency by carefully designing around the circular axis.28 Along with the six facilities, Sejong’s master plan includes 21 communities and several bus terminals that are to be dispersed along the ring road. The city will have a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that runs along the ring road to facilitate quick travel around the loop and easy access to the city’s facilities.29 Each of the 21 communities will be centred on or adjacent to one of the bus terminals to allow easy access to the BRT system. Each neighbourhood will be built with New Urbanist principles in mind with a 400m radius to ensure walkability, key facilities in each community such as schools, health centres, and commercial districts, and innercity bus systems that will connect to the BRT stations.30

The master plan is commendable not only for its Transit Oriented Development (TOD) but also its Traditional Neighbourhood Development (TND). The design not only addresses issues of congestion and reliance on cars by promoting public transit but also anticipates how residents will use public transit. It takes into consideration not only how residents will access the transit system but also how they will access their neighbourhoods more broadly. The design however, is not without its flaws. The OECD identifies a potential issue with a road network that is centred around a ring-shaped road.31 Because the city’s functions are scattered throughout the city instead of concentrated in the middle, public transit in Sejong would be less efficient than a city with a grid system. The OECD speculates that this anticipated inefficiency may result in increased fare prices which may in turn decrease quality and frequency and consequently, lower ridership. On the other hand, the OECD notes that the same design also discourages car use which may instead increase demand for public transit and therefore, increased quality and supply of services.32 Because the infrastructure has yet to be built, there is plenty of room for the project to stray from the master plan and reproduce the car-centric reality in Putrajaya. However, if Sejong’s public transit system is successful in reducing the dominance of cars in the city and meeting its residents’ needs, it may become a model for future developments both in South Korea and internationally.

CONCLUSION

Sejong and Putrajaya are cities similar in their vision and function. By comparing the two cities, this paper identifies that where their differences lie are in their successes and failures. Where Sejong fails to cultivate a sense of unique place-identity, Putrajaya paints a vivid self portrait of a new nation with a progressive Muslim image. Where Putrajaya struggles to meet population goals, Sejong creates policy that not only attracts residents but also subverts a national trend in declining fertility. The two cities’ approach to public transit as a solution to congestion also offers insight to how they might differ. At this stage, it is unclear whether Sejong will continue to develop exactly according to the master plan or if it will deviate in response to unforeseen challenges. Because the city is still under construction, research is limited by the information gathered from planning documents and observation of the parts of the city that are complete. More research will be needed in the future to determine how successful Sejong is both as a city and as a tool to promote more balanced national development. 

31 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Spotlight on four Korean Cities”, in Urban Transport Governance and Inclusive Development in Korea, (2017).

32 OECD, 120.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Choi, Hee Sun, and Alan Reeve. 2015. "Legal Identity in the Form-Production Process, Using as a Case Study the Multifunctional Administrative City Project (Sejong) in South Korea." Urban Design International 66-78.

Cutts, Adam. 2016. "New Cities and Concepts of Value: Planning, Building and Responding to New Urban Realities." New Cities Foundation. March. https:// newcities.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/PDF-New-Cities-and-Concepts-of-Value- CityquestKAECForum2015.pdf.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. 2018. "Federal Territory of Putrajaya at a Glance."

Department of Statistics Malaysia, Official Portal. https://www.dosm.gov.my/ v1/index.php?r=column/cone&menu_id=bkJnUlk2WXUyT0h VWm5IZXlubERjUT09 .

Kang, Jeongmuk. 2012. "A Study of the Future Sustainability of Sejong, South Korea's Multifunctional Administrative City, Focusing on Implementation of Transit Oriented Development." Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet Portal. November 21. http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A571211&dswid=7644.

King, Ross. 2007. "Re-Writing the City: Putrajaya as Representation." Journal of Urban

Design 117-138.

Kwon, Youngsang. 2015. "Sejong Si (City): are TOD and TND Models Effective in Planning Korea's New Capital." Cities 242-257.

MACCA, Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Agency. 2014. "Sejong Korea: Multifuntional Administrative City." National Library of Korea. www. nl.go.kr/app/nl/search/common/download.jsp?file_id=FILE-00008486286.

Moser, Sarah. 2014. "New Cities: Opportunites, Visions and Challenges Cityquest KAEC Forum 2013 Summary and Analysis Report." New Cities Foundation. https://newcities.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/PDF-CityquestKAECForum-Report-Sarah-Moser.pdf.

Moser, Sarah. 2010. "Putrajaya: Malaysia's New Federal Administrative Capital."

Cities 285- 297.

OECD. 2016. "Fertility Rates." OECD Data. https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates. htm.

—. 2022. "Fertility Rates." OECD Data. March 25. https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility- rates.htm#indicator-chart.

OECD. 2017. "Spotlight on four Korean Cities." In Urban Transport Governance and

Inclusive Development in Korea, by OECD, 93-127. Paris: OECD.

Statistics Korea. 2017. "2017 Population and Housing Census." Statistics Korea. http:// kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/pressReleases/8/7/index.board?bmode=read&bSeq=&aSeq= 370993&pageNo=1&rowNum=10&navCount=10&currPg=&sTarget=title&sTxt=.

—. 2017. "Final Results of Birth Statistics in 2017." Statistics Korea. August 22. http:// kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/pressReleases/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=370670.

Steger, Isabella, and Sookyung Lee. 2018. "A New Capital Built from Scratch is an Unlikely Utopia for Korean Families." Quartz, June 20.