For the past two months, President Lee Jae Myung and Seoul Mayor, Oh Se-hoon, have been locked in a stalemate over Cheong Wa Dae’s plans to construct 30,000 homes on Yongsan land, mainly for younger Koreans. This debate, however, is not merely housing vs. green environmentalism. Rather, it reflects disagreements over a site central to South Korea’s modern day identity.
Two decades ago, President Roh Moo-hyun announced Yongsan Garrison’s return, describing the area as “a land with a painful history” but with a new future: freedom from U.S. military control and a park “symbolizing Korea.” A 2007 bipartisan Special
Act made that a reality. Now, however, the Blue House still has not backed down from potentially changing that.
Lee’s opponents cite concerns over environmental clean up and say the Blue House’s policy violates the spirit of 20-year-old plans to transform Yongsan into a green space for all Koreans. Additionally, Yongsan has long been framed as one of national pride and sovereignty. Likened to New York City’s Central Park, it is a site of painful memories such as Japanese colonialism and U.S. military abuses like sexual exploitation.
While the central government said it is “open to discuss” easing restrictions on redeveloping areas outside Yongsan Park — Oh’s preferred approach — the Lee administration likely has deeper reservations about that avenue. President Lee publicly opposed it citing a desire to avoid higher prices but he no doubt has Oh and the 2009 Yongsan Disaster in the back of his mind. In Oh’s first term, a protest at an apartment slated for redevelopment turned violent, killing six people on January 20th, 2009. Residents protested and threw molotov cocktails while Oh was criticized for riot police being overly coercive when confronting protestors. Lee does not want another 2009 because redevelopment would require land expropriation — and the fact this fight is occurring under Oh likely makes the Blue House more hesitant.
The tragedy has also since been memorialized in multiple museums, including a 2016 Declaration explicitly supporting human rights and environmentalism. Museums like the Yongsan City Memorial Exhibition Hall also repeatedly emphasize Yongsan Park as one of autonomy, pride, inclusivity and a process done democratically. Building on Yongsan Park would run counter to this public-facing memorialization.
One way the Lee administration justified using parts of Yongsan is tying the debate to another nationalist issue: Korea’s record low birth rates. Ha Joon-kyung, senior presidential secretary for economic growth said the plan would help young Koreans “get married and raise children.” The opposition, however, has a much stronger nationalistic appeal — in part, because bipartisan plans to transform Yongsan into a national park go back 20 years. Yongsan’s return itself even dates back 40 years earlier to 1987 campaign promises made by President Roh Tae-woo.
In the early 2000s, especially after the 2002 Yangju Highway Incident, many leftist activist organizations argued that “our nation (uri minjok) will prevail over foreign forces (oese).” This nationalism was bridged with pragmatic appeals like environmental damage and people’s well-being. This is the same kind of appeal coming out of the opposition’s rhetoric to the housing plan. Outside Yongsan Children’s Garden — a proposed site for housing — protestors have called Yongsan Park a “legacy for the future” and the “lungs of Seoul.”
One survey (albeit funded by Oh’s administration) finds that almost two-thirds of Seoul residents oppose Lee’s Yongsan housing plan. The Lee administration seems surprised by opposition to turn any part of Yongsan into housing. The lesson for Cheong Wa Dae is that Yongsan is strongly embedded and institutionalized into the public memory and identities of Koreans (or at least Seoul).
Practically-speaking, every piece of returned land requires complete environmental remediation, which takes time. Practically-speaking, every piece of returned land requires complete environmental remediation, which takes time. Ongoing remediation of one site has been occurring for five years while other areas of Yongsan have taken a whopping 17 years. Breaking ground for housing may not occur for 10 years. Lee will not see the benefits of increased housing supply if he goes the Yongsan route. Long-term, he still runs the risk of damaging a site that serves as a public memorial — a place whose destiny was controlled by foreign powers for over a century.
Unless the Blue House unequivocally backs down from Yongsan, any unilateral decision to force this plan through will be unpopular and further damage Lee’s domestic legitimacy. Yes, housing is critical but propose more creative solutions. The current plan is receiving local backlash because the smallest changes to Yongsan’s status as a national park is tied to modern-day Korean identity. Lee needs a housing plan and process that is slower, more deliberate, more inclusive, and more democratic.
Do not forget that Yongsan, at its heart, is about ordinary people’s lived experiences and their painful memories that have blossomed into a place of healing and reconciliation — and Cheong Wa Dae needs to respect that.
The views and information contained in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Asia Cable.
