Korean planners need more Gangnam Style

The following is an adapted text of my discussant comments October 8th at the 4th Korea Land & City Design Forum & Competition, which sponsored by the Financial News and took place at 63 City.

First, I would like to thank the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs, the Financial News, and the organizers of the event for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I have two broad points I would like to make today. Let me note, however, that these comments may apply more to the discourse than the actual implementation and practice of planning in Korea. The first emerges from two similar but perhaps overlooked points made by the keynote speakers. Combining the speakers' thought, we must note that the political, economic, and social  autonomy demanded by low carbon cities is in direct conflict with the export-led model of development that has generated Korea's significant wealth. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue low carbon cities, simply that in doing so we must bear in mind its conflict with the overarching model of development. And this seems to be the primary concern of the speakers at the beginning of the morning. We repeatedly heard that Korea's goods were competitive, but it's cities were not. We heard that this design competition will contribute to raising the competitiveness and status of Korea and its cities. However, while cities are certainly important sites of production in a capitalist economy, cities are not for profit. Ultimately, cities  are for the people who live in them. Thus, while I am genuinely pleased to see that the competition this year has emphasized citizen participation, I am concerned that this contribution has not been evaluated from their perspective. It is surely a wonderful thing to come home to a beautiful home or a beautiful street, but today we heard primarily about how these designs would  lead to more competitive cities. So, if we are ignoring the impact of these developments on the lives of the residents who live there and focusing of the profits to be made, we must ask ourselves who is profiting? I fear---I do not know this, but I am afraid---that citizen participation could be used as vehicle of profit---not for the citizens themselves---but for others.

My second broad concern is with the idea of benchmarking. Today we have heard over and over that Korean cities should benchmark the cities and designs of developed countries' cities. But Korea is developed. The infrastructure here puts that of many major developed country cities to shame. This is surely the case for New York City. Korea is developed. I honestly believe that to go further, Korea needs more...Gangnam Style. What do I mean by this? Let's think for a moment about what has made Gangnam Style such an international hit. On the one hand, the tune is   just plain catchy and the video funny. But I think the real success lies in the individuality that went into its making. According to the story, Psy wrote the music, developed the dance, and produced the video BY HIMSELF. It does not "benchmark" Western styles; it does not actively mimic Western styles. Instead, Gangnam Style represents a uniquely Korean experience that incorporates Psy's musical influences. As Professor Tan suggested with regard to low carbon cities, urban planners have to ask themselves whether they will simply follow the tide or if they will make individual choices on the basis of knowledge of both international and local science and context. Similarly, I would argue that Korean planners should stop benchmarking the outside and instead benchmark Korea citizens' desires. This is what will create more Gangnam Style.

Thank you.