A Sign of Urban Parks in Turmoil
You might ask whether sunset in the urban park close to your home means that you can no longer enter. The answer to this is more complex than it seems: parks on the private land that were not bought by the public will now lose their legal effect and will no longer be used as parks for citizens. The urban parks in Korea, which have been built since 1940s, significantly increased in number from the 1970s and 1980s, but since the 1990s, private landowners in urban parks began to demand their cancellation and compensation for their operation. Mr. Go, the owner of 948,760㎡ out of Daemosan Urban Nature Park sued the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) and Gangnam-gu office for the illegal use of trails and sports facilities by local residents around the mineral spring in June 1996, and restricted people’s access by putting up wire fences. The Supreme Court of Korea ruled in favour of Mr. Go by ordering the authorities to remove the facility and pay compensation of about 100 million KRW, alleging illegal occupation of the facility. This case has exposed some privately owned urban parks to the danger of closure at any time. Ahead of the invalidation that will take effect, conflict situations in which the owners of urban parks close trails to prevent citizens from using them can be found recently here and there, which is a sign of the turmoil in which urban parks will find themselves once invalidation is implemented.
The Results of Invalidation in Urban Parks after 2020
On the 21st of October 1999, the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that urban planning facilities that had not been paid compensation for more than 10 years were unconstitutional in a case of adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes against Article 4 of the City Planning Law▼1 (97 Heonba 26), and a sunset provision was introduced as a complementary measure in the City Planning Law on the 28th of January 2000, which could invalidate the decision of city planning facilities that were not implemented within 20 years as of the 1th of July 2000. This left urban parks classified as city planning facilities under the National Land Use Planning Law, suffering from the direct effect of invalidation due to invalidation. More than 80 – 90% of the land determined as an urban park is forest land and farmland, but it was actually impossible to purchase all of parks within the 20 year grace period before invalidation.▼2 Many urban parks have seen decades since the introduction of the long-term unexecuted city planning facility sunset (Urban Park Invalidation) in 2000, but the reason why the 20-year grace period was introduced was so that residents who used the parks in front of their homes were not immediately deprived of their rights to access to the parks. On the 1st of October 2005, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) completely revised the Urban Park Act to separate the management of facility parks and urban parks, and took action to change the existing urban natural parks to urban natural park areas by the end of 2009.▼3 In addition, it stated that when a park building plan was not publicly recorded on or before the date from which ten years since the date of notification of the decision on the urban management plan had lapsed, the decision would become invalid, and as a result, the first invalidation of a park followed on the 1st of October 2015. The designated area of national urban parks peaked at 1,284.5㎢ in 2008, and kept decreasing to 926.6㎢ in 2018; a decline of 28% of urban park from 2008 in statistics.▼4 Even though local governments directly create parks and promote special projects for private parks of the future, as MOLIT announced in November 2019, the total area of parks to be invalidated is expected to reach 40 – 50% compared to 2008.
Political Countermeasures and their Limitations 1: The Private Sector Participatory Development System
In 2009, MOLIT introduced the Private Sector Participatory Development System (hereinafter PSPDS) that allows private promoters to develop part of the parkland into non-park facilities including apartments while preserving the remainder as parkland donated to the government. In 2014, the minimum size of land eligible for the system was reduced from 100,000㎡ to 50,000㎡, and the area of non-park facilities was increased from 20% to 30% to enhance the profitability of the projects. As the invalidation of urban parks approached, local governments also began to implement PSPDS in earnest, and at one point even 120 projects were reviewed. However, few entered the stage of project implementation due to strong opposition from civic groups and residents in many
areas. Gwangju Metropolitan City, after a series of discussions with civic groups and experts, concluded that 90% of the park site could be purchased even if only 10% of the park land was permitted for residential development, and started to promote PSPDS; while in Daejeon Metropolitan City, 60% of local people objected to the specialization of Wolpyeong Park out of concern for sprawling development, but they conditionally approved the Jeonglim District special project in Wolpyeong Park.Most of the parks which are the object of PSPDS are neighbourhood parks in mountainous areas located close to the city centre, and were concerned that developing 30% or less of this land as apartment complexes, even if the site is already damaged, will inevitably cause problems such as damage to the natural landscape or encroach upon views. Several PSPDS foundered as they were promoted without a detailed preliminary impact assessment, and local governments missed the best opportunity to prepare for the invalidation of urban park.
Political Countermeasures and Their Limitations 2: The Urban Nature Park Zone
Some decry the urban natural park area system, introduced in 2005, calling it ‘a trick to avoid invalidation’ or ‘an illegal system that infringes the property rights of land owners’. Parks classified as local public property can however serve as essential devices to protect urban natural landscapes by partially easing regulations such as restrictions on construction work. Certain countries, such as Japan, where there is no invalidation plan for urban planning parks, also operate a green area system with various features and restrictions related to public property. On the 29th of April 2020, the SMG designated 69.22㎢ of 68 natural mountain type parks as urban natural park areas, permitting some development activities for landowners, and also revised an ordinance survey to reduce the property tax of urban park owners by 50%.▼5 Unlike the Restricted Development Zone, as urban natural park areas have limitations by which the establishment of management plans are not mandatory, the integrated management plan of parks in urban planning facilities and urban natural park areas can be established in connection with urban natural park areas planning and management guidelines, which are dictated in the divisional planning of parks and greenbelts master plan. In addition, it is necessary to find ways to resolve conflicts with the owners of the urban natural parks. As about 40% of private parks belong to schools, corporations, and religious facilities, and as many owners want to retain ownership rather than create parks through compensation, the promotion of use contract of green areas, and free-use contracts must be enacted, and the efforts to reveal various cooperative measures to protect land owners’ rights through business models such as forest parks, must also be prioritised.
Management Plans in Terms of Urban Planning after the Invalidation of Urban Parks: Natural Environment, Preservation Area, Scenic District
In 2018, MOLIT spatulated in the ‘Urban or Gun Management Planning Guidelines’ and ‘Long-delayed Urban Park Management Guidelines’ that changes to land use from a conservation green area should be examined in an area of 30,000m2 or more when neighbouring parks in the residential area are revoked and distanced from the planning decisions of urban parks. Development is allowed in conservation green areas within a building to ratio of 20% and floor area ratio of 50% or less, but strict action restrictions are discouraging most local governments from deciding to assign urban park land as conservation green areas. MOLIT suggests designating scenic districts, establishing district unit plans, and establishing growth management plans as additional measures, in addition to assigning conservation green space, but this is actually far from the preservation of good natural environments following the implementation of invalidation. The scenic district system mainly aims to regulate the building height adjacent to a park or mountain rather than to restrain development, and it is applied to the invalid area of parks in a limited way. District unit plans or growth management plans intend to encourage systematic development on the basis of development, and are not suitable for mountainous parks.After Invalidation: Integrated Management as National Green Infrastructure A turn in the course of events concerning urban parks was expected when the Urban Forest Law was subjected to the scrutiny of the National Assembly on the 20th of May 2020. This law aims to systematically construct and ecologically manage urban forests and was raised as an alternative to manage natural environments in a city following the implementation of invalidation in the parks. Urban parks, a kind of urban planning facility, have not received financial support from the Korea Forest Service—local governments take full responsibility for their creation and management. But they may be eligible for purchase and financial support by the government after the invalidation system is implemented, according to the Urban Forest Law on an institutional basis. A urban park is a forest reserved like an island for local people in the area while simultaneously developing the urban area and a contingent green infrastructure that will drive the sustainability of the city. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, manage their urban forests on the same scale as their green infrastructure, regardless of common land or private land, or whether parks are determined by urban planning or not. They protect the natural environment of the city by creating an institutional system as public resources themselves are not sufficient. In Korea, Green Infrastructure is managed by MOLIT, Ministry of Environment (ME), and the Korea Forest Service (KFS). This ternary management system is very inefficient. Just as the Four-Rivers Project issues which had been managed by MOLIT and ME were unified in 2017, the actors that conserve and manage green infrastructure in a city should be integrated, while the local governments that actually perform management tasks should be empowered to implement various conservation and management policies. In addition, in response to the complaints of park owners and the demands of citizens who use the park as a resting space, we should promote various government policies and those of the private sector, such as granting incentives such as the reduction of inheritance tax or local tax on land, and managing parks by citizens or corporations.
-
1. Refers to City Planning Law, revised and enacted as regulation No. 5982 on the 24th of May 1999.
2. Revised in 2009 and amended to designate urban nature park area and to change urban planning until it was invalidated.
3. The ruling, which was the basis for the introduction of the Urban Park Invalidation, demanded compensation for the infringement of property rights for sites that could not be used as usual, but clearly stated that ‘forests and fields’ be designated as parks even though they could be used as originally intended and would not prompt financial loss. Therefore, it has been pointed out that the introduction of the Urban Park Invalidation, which forces decisions on the fate of urban parks, which are mostly free of property infringement, to sunset, is an excessive legislative measure.
4. Figures for Park Area are extracted from the MOLIT’s Urban Planning Status.
5. Until now, the landowners of urban parks that have not been executed had a 50% property tax reduction and waiver, so even after they have been confirmed as urban natural park areas, they revised the regulations of autonomous districts and Seoul City to allow for the reduction and waiver of the same property tax.