SPACE August 2023 (No. 669)
In March of this year, Lim Hyoungnam (co-principal, studio_GAON Architects) was elected as chairman of Korea Architects Institute (KAI). On the 14th of March, shortly after beginning its two-year term, KAI issued a press release expressing concern about Seoul Metropolitan Government’s plan to build ‘Seoul Ring’ and has since issued five statements. Although two decades have passed since KAI was founded, it is unusual for the association to release a statement every month. SPACE interviewed the chairman to find out more about the many issues that presently shape the architectural world, including allegations of plagiarism, architectural copyright, design competitions, the Certified Architects Act and mandatory membership of the association, as well as the association’s responses, future plans, and their guiding message to the architectural world.
interview Lim Hyoungnam chairman, Korea Architects Institute × Bang Yukyung
ⓒBang Yukyung
Bang Yukyung (Bang): Since taking office as chairman of KAI in March, you have issued five press releases as well as statements as of July. What has been the response from both inside and outside the architectural world?
Lim Hyoungnam (Lim): In recent months there have been a series of projects and incidents that have required public statements from architectural professionals, addressing projects such as the ‘Great Hangang Project’ of Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG). What is at the core of what we have raised is the need to raise social awareness, to improve the system for architects, and to correct the unethical practices underlying them. I heard that journals often thought in the past, ‘Why are we interfering in the internal affairs of the architectural world?’ But as we continue to speak out, the press is slowly becoming more aware and better informed about the issues. In recent months, many media outlets including newspapers and broadcasters have contacted us and conducted interviews. One disappointment is that we don’t sense as much interest from within the architectural world when compared to those changes in attitude on the outside.
Bang: KAI’s first statement was to voice concern over SMG’s plan to build the Seoul Ring, as communicated in a press release on the 14th of March. You accused the project’s team of plagiarising the national symbolic building, ‘Millennium Gate’, which was selected through a design competition, and used language such as ‘architectural copyright’ and questioned its ‘suitability as a gateway to Seoul’. What do you think is behind these issues?
Lim: On the 8th of March, SMG announced at a press conference its intention to build a Ferris wheel, the Seoul Ring, in Haneul Park, Sangam-dong. The Ferris wheel is similar in design, form, name, and location to that of the Millennium Gate (the original name of the proposal was Seoul Ring) with only minor changes to the lower support structure. However, the authorities claimed that the circular structure is a universal form and did not mention the original architect at all. This is immoral conduct that completely ignores architectural copyright. This has resulted from poor public awareness and knowledge of what architects do and what the architectural field is. Korean society still regards architecture as a quantity-oriented industry rather than as a part of its national culture. This is because the architecture industry has been dominated by large construction companies during the compressed growth process. Architecture is still seen as a part of the construction process, or as a field affiliated with real estate. No one asks why or where a circular symbol with a huge capital investment is needed at this time. We felt that it was the role of an association to correct this gap in perception and to point out what was wrong.
Bang: At the Junglim Foundation’s forum on the 13th of June, Woo Daeseung (principal, Woo-projects Architects), architect of the original design, revealed process of design fee litigation after the Millennium Gate was cancelled. The 11-year legal battle provoked outrage within the architectural world; the client evaded responsibility, the administration and procedures clearly did not respect architects, and the architect was made to feel utterly helpless throughout the process.
Lim: The design of Millennium Gate was completed in 2000, but the new minister of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (now the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism) unilaterally cancelled the project to clear the achievements of the former minister. The architect became a political victim. At that time, the association or elders representing the architectural professional group should have come forward and rebuked the government and administration for this self-serving conduct, and demanded that this wrongdoing be corrected, but no one did. There were those who dismissed it as common practice, or who were afraid of being put on the blacklist. It was influenced by the defeatism endemic in the architectural world. In the end, the architect was driven to the edge fighting a lonely battle. It can happen to anyone, and all architects should reflect.
Bang: In the forum, Joung Sangjae, director of Copyright Committee of the KAI, explained the concept of architectural copyright, stressing that the essence of the architectural design is the creation of actions and activities. What are the association’s measures to protect copyright, and what is the role of the committee?
Lim: We established the Copyright Committee at the launch of the 8th term of the KAI. The lack of common standards is a big issue in copyright. In this plagiarism case, some architects agreed with the statement that a ‘circle is a universal form.’ This shows that even we lack the concept and awareness of copyright. There is also a contractual issue when the copyright of the design becomes vested in the ordering party or client. The forum emphasised the importance of one architectural act using the design drawing, where to specify the scope of copyright in the contract is essential. To this end, the Copyright Committee is currently collecting various cases and setting standards. We are going to establish specific standards for not only architectural designs, but also related industries such as architectural photography.
(top) Rendering image of Millennium Gate (2000) / Image courtesy of Woo-projects Architects, (bottom) Rendering image of Seoul Ring (2023) / Image courtesy of Seoul Metropolitan Government
Bang: In your statement on the housing rental scam case released on the 25th of April, you called for the perpetrators to be called a ‘housing rental scam group’ or a ‘development scam group’ instead of the ‘architecture king’, which also aims to raise social awareness of architecture. What conversations took place as a professional group while preparing the statement?
Lim: The moment a language is defined, a framework of perception is also defined. We can recall the social perception of hairdressers changed to ‘professionals’ when they were renamed teachers and hair designers. When the term ‘architect’ starts to be used in a derogatory way, the entire group of architects are degraded to ‘a bunch of villa-building scammers’, polluting the term itself. A group of professionals should define terminology in a correct way. We agreed that architects need to speak up and call attention to the issue. And it’s important to do so quickly before it becomes irrelevant. KAI is a flexible and horizontal organisation, so we were able to make quick decisions and clarify our position right away.
Bang: It’s impossible not to mention the issue of design competitions. On the 31st of May, KAI published a declaration to eradicate corruption and expressed its commitment to transparent and fair design competitions. The declaration was signed by 436 architects, but is ‘a statement is enough?’ What is your position on evaluative criteria and the process behind design competitions?
Lim: The decisive moment that forever after corrupted design competitions and disrupted the evaluation process was the shift to the turnkey system applied to all public projects in the 2000s. During the one or two rounds of an evaluation process, architectural design firms colluded with construction companies, and construction companies illegally won projects by providing money to the jurors. After a decade of the ills, architectural design firms were degraded to subcontractors of construction companies. This declaration is part of a self-purification effort to uproot the misguided tradition. Compared to the estimated 18,000 registered architects in the country, the 436 participants may seem trivial. However, I think it is significant that we have taken the first step in pressuring and encircling the corrupt powers and removing their platform. We are going to continue this campaign in the future. On the other hand, I agree that we need to improve the current evaluation process in which jurors examine proposals on the spot and evaluate them from a personal perspective. Jurors should also take more time to have in-depth discussions among them and establish clear evaluation criteria. This way, they can choose the appropriate proposal that meets the objectives of the competition between the values of originality and experimentation, and feasibility. In reality, I think it’s more important to create a synergy effect by a collaboration between architects and administrators to realise any proposal as long as it’s selected through the right process.
Bang: The recent Nodeul Global Art Island Design Competition by SMG was criticized for its rough-and-ready administration that overturned the development process of the facility completed three years ago after much difficulty (covered in SPACE No. 627). There was no respect or reference to the existing architects in the process. How can we build a system to verify the validity of policy projects across design competitions?
Lim: I think the problem is not a matter of specific local governments or individual administrators, but rather rests with the continuity in administration. Korea is a low-credit society. Public projects usually take ten years from order to completion. To guarantee the continuity of policies even if the ruling party changes, the ordering of design competitions also requires a process of social consensus. This will prevent decision makers from overturning a project easily. Nodeul Global Art Island Design Competition invited even overseas architects to receive seven plans, some of which cost more than 1 trillion KRW. Considering the cost and time required, I wonder if SMG is willing to implement the project, or if it’s just a performance based on the premise that it won’t be realised (during their term in office). We need to reexamine how much social cost is being wasted for a show on public property.
Bang: The design competition system has sought to improve the quality of public buildings, but the winning proposals have often failed to realise their projects as planned, which has been pointed out as a chronic problem. What do you think caused this problem and how you can solve it?
Lim: Recently, there was a report that SMG is considering a cut-and-paste edition of the seven proposals of the design competition in response to the opposition to environmental destruction and burden of expenses. I couldn’t help laughing at the news. Of course, none of the participant architects agree with this approach, but, on the contrary, it proves the client’s attitude toward architects and architectural design, and how hastily policies are established. The current architecture system, including design competitions, is too anonymous. Advice, deliberation, supervision, and special prosecution for approval of use are also used as a way for officials to avoid responsibility. The promoters manipulate reviewers and advisors to modify the plans as they want. They wield absolute power. Architects’ complaints in the implementation phase are mainly about frequent design changes, unnecessary permits, and increased workload due to deliberations. In order to eliminate unnecessary regulations that infringe on architects’ autonomy, KAI delivers opinions to ministries such as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) and Office for Government Policy Coordination, Prime Minister’s Secretariat. We also seek to eliminate bylaws and arbitrary regulations that vary by local government, such as raising the height of internal railings of apartment buildings to 1.2m or prohibiting planning of attics. These regulations treat architects like potential criminals. Asserting the right to adhere to the original design is also a major concern. Standard contracts that favor the client also need to be modified. To secure fair compensation, we are preparing to amend the law to create a standard to prove the work scope, duration, and amount of work and specify it in the contract.
Bang: You are in a dispute with the Korea Institute of Registered Architects (KIRA) over the amendment to the Certified Architects Act that stipulates ‘mandatory membership’. The follow-up action that suspended mandatory membership expires on the 3rd of August. In response, on the 7th of June, you released a statement concerning mandatory membership, and on the 6th of July, you submitted an inquiry on the mandatory membership bill to the MOLIT and KIRA. What is at the heart of the issue?
Lim: An association for architects and designers should listen to their complaints and critical assessments inside and outside the architectural world to provide a clearer vision for the future. However, KIRA hasn’t shown such perception or an objective. The issue of mandatory membership itself is problematic, but what is worse is the expected follow-up measures after the amendment. In addition to the controversial designated supervision system by permission holders, the special inspection for use approval, and the local supervisor, the final review stage requires submitting even the drawings to KIRA to receive approval. KIRA has pushed for amendments based on ethical and safety concerns, but as the recent embezzlement scandal at KIRA Seoul shows, even the organisation hasn’t taken the right steps. Expanding the base of professionals is a prerequisite for increasing the size of the architectural design market in a stage of sluggish development, but KIRA is also deliberately controlling the number of new certified architects low. MOLIT has consistently recommended increasing the number of new certified architects, but the pass rate of the architects qualifying examination is currently about 7 – 8%. Korea Architectural Accrediting Board, KIRA Education Board, and Korea Architects Registration Board, and other organisations involved in the production, career management, and licensing of architects, are operating under the umbrella of KIRA, so there is no way to keep them in check. They are driving the design market into a turf war. We did not hear any opinions of the transparent disclosure of differential membership fees for the local branch other than the main association, or the exercise of the right of disobedience by not joining the association. It’s natural to raise questions about the operating condition of KIRA, which is geared towards the convenience of the administrators who manage and monitor them, not the designers.
Bang: This year marks the 20th anniversary of KAI. In your inaugural speech, you stated that you would ‘expand the reach of architects and fulfill social responsibilities’. What are your specific plans for this, and what is your final message for the architectural world?
Lim: I believe that as the times change, the image of professionals should also change. The same goes for KAI. Instead of increasing the gap between professionals and the public, we should increase points of contact step by step. This year, we will launch a programme called ‘Architectural Tea Room’ where the public can meet with architects and talk about design. We expect to start in the second half of the year. Compared to the three major architectural organisations (KIRA, Korean Institute of Architects, Architectural Institute of Korea), KAI is a small organisation with a short history. However, we have a strong mind to develop our identity as an organisation that helps architects and designers and represents their interests. As the population is gradually shrinking and the labour supply is difficult, we are trying to create an environment where young architects born in the 1980s and 1990s can work autonomously. We have been also trying to reform various systems, so I hope that you will continue to show an interest in our future activities.
You can see more information on the SPACE No. 669 (August 2023).
