In recent years, the administration of Seoul – South Korea’s capital – has fixated on design. The government has sponsored a range of projects with the hope of promoting a new national image for the post-developed nation. However, some of these design projects have yielded unintended side effects. In Gwanghwamun, a discrepancy looms between the government’s professed rationale for a new plaza and its actual consequences, casting doubt upon the proper place for design in future Korean politics.
Seoul’s Rise to the Capital of Design
In 2005, the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID) announced the World Design Capital (WDC) initiative at its annual convention. WDC’s architects intended to create an opportunity for cities to present their accomplishments in innovative design and urban revitalization. They focused on the broader essence of design’s impact on urban spaces, economies, and citizens. While recognizing design’s role in making a place more habitable and efficient for its local residents, the WDC initiative’s website also emphasizes design as “an economic development tool” in a global sense, something that should foster a partnership between “developed countries and emerging economies.”
Korea – a nation that had for some years sought global recognition as a developed country rather than an emerging economy – pounced on the opportunity the WDC initiative offered. After the prize’s announcement in 2005, the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) hurriedly put together a bid to be selected as the WDC. Its efforts paid off in 2007, when Seoul was selected as the WDC of 2010.
For its WDC debut, Seoul sponsored several international events, including Seoul Design Fair 2010 with the theme of “Design For All”; Seoul International Design Workshop 2010 under the slogan “Universal Design With It-Unit”; and a Children’s Design Creativity Camp. Even earlier, though, the government created and funded specialized institutions in order to help implement various design-related projects to advance Seoul as the WDC, such as Seoul Design Center – established in 2006 to support the creation and management of Korea as a design nation – as well as Seoul Design Foundation, an umbrella organization created to oversee several WDC initiatives. Perhaps on account of the city’s active sponsorship of design-related events and projects, Seoul became designated as the “City of Design” in 2010 under the UNESCO Creative Cities Network, in addition to its earlier selection as WDC 2010.
The Controversy Emerges
Taking advantage of the publicity generated both at home and abroad by recognition from two well-known international organizations – ICSID and UNESCO – Seoul’s government actively promoted the image of the Korean capital as a sophisticated, cosmopolitan center with ambitions to become (in the government’s words) “the hub of global design.” As this image of Seoul started gathering more attention, Oh Se-Hoon, the mayor of the city at that time, adopted the slogan “Design Seoul.” A savvy politician, Oh saw that design could be the marker of distinction for his administration, just as “Green Growth” (nokssaek seongjang) had been for his predecessor, Lee Myung-Bak. However, when the government launched the large-scale public construction of Gwanghwamun Plaza, Mayor Oh Se-Hoon did not get the public reaction he had anticipated.
Gwanghwamun Plaza: Gaining Ground but Losing Voice
As the central gate of Gyeongbokgung, the main palace of Joseon Dynasty, Gwanghwamun became a symbol of political power. Since the end of the Joseon Dynasty, multiple regimes have sought to appropriate it in some way, either through destruction, relocation, or augmentation. Japanese colonial rulers and Korean national leaders – both during and after the country’s dictatorial history – moved or embellished the gate.
It was not only a symbol of authority but also a center of civic political participation. A major assembly point during the days of pro-democracy demonstrations in the 1980s, the area regained its political significance in the early days of Lee Myung-Bak’s presidency. When Mayor Oh’s administration set out on the reconstruction plan in 2008, for example, Seoul was in chaos with protesters pouring out onto the streets with candles to appeal the government that had ignored the public opinion. Sparked by widespread dissatisfaction over the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S., the so-called “candlelight protests” lasted over 100 days and involved an estimated million frustrated citizens. Even though most citizens respected the rule of peaceful assembly, seeing a large number of discontented citizens in Gwanghwamun alarmed the conservatives, including President Lee Myung-Bak and Mayor Oh Se-Hoon.
Meanwhile, Oh Se-Hoon had included Gwanghwamun Plaza as one of the two centerpieces for “Design Seoul.” The city government explained that the construction was intended to enhance citizens’ leisure and recreational life by increasing their access to public space. “One of the goals we are pursuing through public construction projects as part of our ‘design policies’ is to respond to the public opinion that there are not enough public spaces where people can go to relax or to which they can bring visitors from foreign countries,” commented Mayor Oh during a 2009 interview noted by Sang-Chul Kim. This seemingly rational effort dovetailed with the conservatives’ political agenda of putting an end to the candlelight protests.
The renewal plan divided Gwanghwamun into a “plaza” and the “Citizens’ Open Ground.” Gwanghwamun Plaza was a new creation, standing on what used to be a 16-lane thoroughfare leading to Gwanghwamun, the main gate of Gyeongbokgung. With five lanes to its left and five lanes to its right on a busy road at the city center, it looks like a stranded island. Open to pedestrians, the plaza is divided into four thematic zones: Urban, Culture, Representation of History, and Restoration of History. According to SMG, the plaza includes a fountain, artificial streams, an open square for recreational activities and exhibitions, and a carpet of flowers, among other features.
The other site, the Citizens’ Open Ground, was created from a pre-existing installation. Previously, usage of Citizens’ Open Ground followed a reporting system that did not require the government’s permission. However, a new ordinance begins with language that excludes political rallies from occurring in the space: “This ordinance intends to define the rules regarding usage and management of Gwanghwamun Plaza for recreational activities and cultural events of citizens.” It then institutes a review process subject to the mayor’s approval: “Application for the permission to use the Plaza will be reviewed by mayor of Seoul in consideration of the following: 1) Whether the event violates the purpose of the plaza; 2) whether the proposed use is restricted by other laws. If necessary, mayor can enforce additional regulations in order to secure public order.”
This means that any application that runs counter to the stated purpose of the Gwanghwamun Plaza — leisure and culture — will be denied. The vagueness of the last section amplifies the executive and discretionary power of the mayor, who can decide single-handedly what acts threaten public security. Even a peaceful assembly within the boundaries of the law, like the candlelight protests, when citizens of all ages – secondary school students in their uniforms, moms with their babies in strollers, senior citizens, white collar workers in their business suits – gathered in the Gwanghwamun area, would no longer be allowed to take place if deemed “political” in any way.
Moreover, the revised ordinance entitles the government to cancel the granted approval with a simple notification if the event is considered a danger to the safety of citizens or the public order or is deemed to be in violation of “other regulations,” broadly defined. In addition, the eighth clause of the ordinance states, “The mayor can change the status of permission even after the permission is granted if the metropolitan government of Seoul needs the space in the interest of the public, or if the change of status is required to ensure public security and social order.” Again the ordinance remains unclear about what kinds of situations would qualify as being in “public interest.”
In response to dissatisfaction expressed concerning the restricted usage of Gwanghwamun Plaza, the government has defended its decision to revise the ordinance. It has argued that Gwanghwamun is surrounded by the Blue House, the U.S. Embassy, and other national landmarks, making security an absolute imperative. Another reason is the protection of citizens’ security and unrestricted flow of traffic from possible danger and chaos arising from protests and political assemblies. Ironically, the government had reduced the number of traffic lanes from 16 to 10 in order to create the Gwanghwamun Plaza in the first place, leading to a perennial bottleneck in the area.
The revision in the ordinance can thus be seen as an indirect commentary on the legacy of mass politics in South Korea. At critical junctures during the era of developmental dictatorship, protesters poured out onto the streets, often risking their lives, to voice their demands. Defining citizens as consumers suggests that Korean society has moved beyond the stage of development when mass politics were needed to check state power. Since South Korea in the twenty-first century has both a flourishing economy and secure democracy, citizens no longer need to struggle to bring about changes to the political process. Now, having more rights as citizens means having more rights to consume, and more access means more choices to consume. Citizens, however, clearly still see themselves as political actors as well.
Social Design: Crafting a Solution
Bringing the idea of design into the political scene was a creative way to start twenty-first century politics in Korea, but the politicians who initiated this process still sport a tunnel vision. In order for design politics to be a genuine innovation, it cannot simply force old trends of oppression into a new framework. Applying design to politics needs to be different from applying it to the commercial industry or architecture. Creating a prettier public space is not the role of design in politics. A public construction is a public possession that serves the citizens’ needs, considered in a multi-faceted and holistic way, before it is an architectural project run by the government.
In Oh Se-Hoon’s “Design Seoul,” design simply meant aesthetics. The term “design,” however, means much more. Though the Korean word “design” refers mainly to the action of sketching or planning a product’s look or form, even the SMG acknowledges the general meaning of design includes the action of crafting a purpose, which refers to the planning or intention behind an action or a fact. Within this broader definition, appearance is only a part of what constitutes “design,” not the whole. Illuminated in this light, the idea of ‘social design’ can be an alternative framework of design politics capable of achieving the government’s initial vision of putting “citizens-first.”
An important facet of social design and people-centered politics is the question of welfare. The underlying philosophy behind social design is a concern for the collective wellbeing of the society. The notion is to create a city or a nation where citizens of all different backgrounds to be happy together by providing more welfare benefits to support citizens of lower socio-economic strata. According to Bum-Taek Hong, to Mayor Park and the supporters of social design, closing the gap of socio-economic status by strong welfare is the way to achieve “Sangsaeng,” or “co-prosperity.”
Social design corrects the design politics of the former administration by refusing to sacrifice content for form and by paying greater attention to the lived reality inside rather than seeking to manufacture a national image for the consumption of the outside world. Currently, the manifestation of social design in Seoul administration under the new mayor has its own problems. But the essence of social design remains people. A balanced approach to put this fundamental insight into practice will bring the definition of design one step closer to becoming aligned with the ideal development of a healthy society. Politics is the governance of people. When people who make up the nation are adequately cared for, the desired national image will come along in time.