Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
research-article2016
UARXXX10.1177/1078087416638449Urban Affairs ReviewJoo and Park
Article
Urban Affairs Review
2017, Vol. 53(5) 843–867
Overcoming Urban © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Growth Coalition: The sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1078087416638449
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416638449
Case of Culture-Led journals.sagepub.com/home/uar
Urban Revitalization in
Busan, South Korea
Abstract
Facing both neoliberalism and the persisting legacies of developmentalism,
many South Korean cities continue to subscribe to strong growth-first
ideologies, despite their deindustrialization and aging populations. The
growth orientation in cities, however, is far from being limited to South
Korea. In fact, the recently emerging discourse on urban shrinkage, which
has been West-centric so far, is questioning the bias toward growth in cities,
and calling for a paradigm shift. This article brings together the literatures
on shrinking cities and urban politics to illustrate how an East Asian city,
transforming from a developmentalist to an entrepreneurial city, could seek
a development alternative to the one based on the neoliberal competition
for capital. Specifically, it examines the case of Totatoga, a culture-led
urban revitalization project in a declining, old commercial district of Busan.
It explains how a new kind of state–society collaboration opportunely
explored a development path other than growth.
Keywords
shrinking cities, culture-led urban revitalization, urban politics, East Asia
Corresponding Author:
Yu-Min Joo, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469C
Bukit Timah Rd., Singapore 259772, Singapore.
Email: sppjym@nus.edu.sg
844 Urban Affairs Review 53(5)
Introduction
Globalization is leading to a new spatial consequence of increasing interur-
ban inequality between those cities that have successfully integrated into the
new global economic network and those that have not (Scott and Storper
2003). Urban scholars have focused on the former under the rubric of “global
cities” for some time, but the latter unplugged cities are also very much pres-
ent, manifesting shrinking population and economic downturn, as they fail to
find a niche in the global economy. Framing urban shrinkage as the other part
of the spatial manifestation of globalization, there has recently emerged a
literature on shrinking cities (e.g., Martinez-Fernandez et al. 2012; Pallagst,
Wiechmann, and Martinez-Fernandez 2014; Wiechmann and Pallagst 2012).
Against the neoliberalism that highlights the intercity competition to attract
global capital in urban development agendas, this literature argues that such
growth-dependent strategies do little to improve the urban conditions of the
shrinking cities, and hence calls for a paradigm shift. Understandably, much
of the shrinking city literature is based on the European and U.S. cities that
have undergone urban shrinkage for some time as their prior industries relo-
cated overseas without new capital moving in. Yet, in today’s intensifying
globalization, urban shrinkage is no longer an isolated problem for a few old
industrial cores. Due to highly mobile capital, cities elsewhere, including in
Asia, also increasingly need to grapple with the changing circumstances that
introduce urban shrinkage as a real and immediate challenge.
In fact, for many of the East Asian cities, as swiftly as they have developed
under the strong developmental states’ growth agendas compared with the
cities in the West, they appear to face equally fast-approaching urban shrink-
age, with their deindustrialization and unprecedented rate of aging popula-
tion. Yet most East Asian cities’ governments still adhere to lingering
developmentalist legacies, on one hand, and are quickly embracing the neo-
liberal ideologies highlighting the competitive market logic on the other.1 In
this article, referring to the city of Busan of South Korea (hereafter “Korea”)
as a case, we explore how an East Asian city could be shrewd in its urban
shrinkage, overcoming the growth orientation stemming not only from neo-
liberal urban policies but also from its legacy of developmentalism.
Specifically, we focus on a culture-led urban revitalization project,
Totatoga, which exhibits a different path of development that uses arts and
culture in a way that is not dominated by growth priorities under the state-
led political environment. Carefully planned by nonstate actors, and assisted
by collaborating local government since 2010, it has prioritized local cul-
tural activities and community engagement to bring life back into the old
downtown of Busan. It stands out from other local artist residency pro-
grams in Korea, where artists more often than not have chafed under rigid
Joo and Park 845
Although there have been some criticisms that saw the limits of the pro-
growth coalitions as the main interpretation of urban development dynamics,
especially when examining the Western European cities that showed more
restrictive urban growth policies (e.g., Fainstein 2001; Harding 1994), the
growth paradigm today seems to be getting an even stronger hold on cities
across the globe amid intensifying neoliberal globalization (Swyngedouw,
Moulaert, and Rodriguez 2002). The neoliberal ideologies, which emphasize
competition and predominantly evaluate cities as the engines of growth
through a market-oriented lens, have led to the rising roles of the private sec-
tor in urban policies (MacLeod and Jones 2011). In fact, it has been argued
that there are now fewer options in policy agendas for cities, as the corporate
interests dominate local development decisions under the justification (or the
necessity) of having to compete amid globalization (Brenner and Theodore
2002; Dryzek 1996; Peck 1998). Cities are manifesting “growth obsession”
and consider the inability to constantly showcase a growing population and
economy as failure (Leo and Brown 2000). Hence, it is not a surprise that
even the shrinking cities continue to be planned as if they were growing
(Sousa and Pinho 2015). Against this trend, the literature on shrinking cities
has begun to question the existing growth-centered planning paradigm.
The shrinking cities discourse underscores that presupposing growth and
hoping to rekindle it via the traditional growth-oriented planning strategies
are not likely to bring successful and sustainable solutions because of the
changed economic and population structures (Sousa and Pinho 2015). A dif-
ferent development logic for shrinking cities is needed (Großmann et al.
2013)—one that embraces both growth and shrinkage as concurrent urban
phenomena (Wiechmann and Pallagst 2012). Instead of growth being a value-
free ultimate goal, this new movement argues for “smart shrinking,” which is
about prioritizing to improve the quality of life to achieve smaller but “bet-
ter” places (Hollander 2011; Popper and Popper 2002). The idea is to adopt a
positive outlook on urban shrinkage and consider new advantages to be found
for local policy making, proactively seeking alternative development paths2
and overcoming the growth coalitions.
This paradigm shift, however, is not easy to put into practice. Shrinkage
has been considered as a “stigma,” and its discussion has been shunned in the
local planning and political arena (Beauregard 2003; Reckien and Martinez-
Fernandez 2011). Wiechmann and Pallagst (2012) noted how, even though
many U.S. cities have for years employed various approaches to revitalize
their declining urban inner cores, no active discourse of shrinking cities has
arisen. Considering that East Asian cities have experienced astonishing rates
of growth until recently (and are still surrounded by the celebration of it), one
can imagine that their local governments would be even more hesitant to
Joo and Park 847
raise the issue of planning for shrinkage, despite their recent transformations
marked by declining population and deindustrialization.
851
Note. Data were not yet available for the newly developed Sejong City. GRDP = Gross Regional Domestic Product.
852 Urban Affairs Review 53(5)
Busan did emerge as one of the world’s major container ports. It was the
third largest port (in terms of container throughput) after Hong Kong and
Singapore in 2002, although it was pushed back to fifth in 2003 by the rapidly
growing Chinese ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen (Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2009). The port activities alone,
however, have not been enough to buoy the local economy. Failing to attain
a strong presence in the national and global economy, Busan has not been
designated as a global city in the United Nations (UN) or other statistical
sources (Richardson and Bae 2014). In fact, Busan has been continuing to
lose population (on average 40,000 per year) to the neighboring cities and to
the SMA (S.-H. Park et al. 2012). Not only has the population been decreas-
ing since the mid-1990s, but the city also currently has the largest elderly
population in Korea (Seo, Cho, and Skelton 2015).
Amid the economic and social stagnation, the local government has been
devising strategies for postindustrial transformation, with a vision to turn
Busan into a maritime city8 and an Asian gateway. Culture became important
in its postindustrial strategies, especially with Busan’s successful hosting of
Korea’s first international film festival in 1996. Since then, the idea of making
Busan a cultural city has begun to take shape. In 2004, Busan was designated
as the Cine Culture City; and among the seven major projects identified in the
Dynamic Busan 2020 Road Map (2005), “Cultural City Project” was one.
Busan’s cultural policies closely resemble growth-oriented policies, and
its first comprehensive plan (Busan Cultural Vision 2020), developed in
2007, focused on making huge and ambitious investments in cultural infra-
structures, aspiring to put the city “on the map” in the global urban hierarchy.
Some examples of attempted projects include a Guggenheim museum, an art
center, a national library, the national ocean museum, and the Busan Art
Biennale Space. Without having communicated with the central government
first, the art center and the national library could not take place; and lacking
a budget, the Guggenheim museum was unfeasible from the beginning (Cha
2014). Currently, the main issue being discussed is an opera house develop-
ment plan (benchmarking Sydney’s opera house), hoping to trigger success-
ful waterfront redevelopment as the city is relocating one of its old main ports
(Cha 2014).
Busan’s pursuit of international attention-grabbing projects is understand-
able under the mayor-centered pro-growth coalition in Korea. While the
industrial restructuring is highly difficult, the popularly elected mayor is
seeking to showcase his efforts to keep Busan’s image of economic growth
and prosperity as the second metropolitan city of Korea, and to continue to
attract private capital to the city. However, such a prescription of megaproj-
ects and international events, alongside its low fiscal independence rate of
Joo and Park 853
city’s initial plan to locate the project in one of its buildings. Thereafter, the
project could not proceed because district governments were reluctant to let
go of their properties, expecting that once committed, it would be difficult to
get them back (Baek 2009). In the end, Busan managed to find two underused
public buildings, and spent a total of US$80,000 in renovation to support
three to four artists each. Having read a newspaper article about the govern-
ment’s failed attempt and the leftover US$250,000, a local cultural planner
(Cha, Jae-Keun) contacted the city government official, and developed a pro-
posal for Totatoga (Cha 2011). In our interview, he commented,
We had to think of a model that could produce outcomes within the limited
budget of US$250,000. The answer was rental spaces. But even for that, the
budget was still restrictive. Hence, we proposed a collaborative model
involving the government, property owners, and artists. Local building owners
were asked to lower their rents. Artists were asked to put some investments in
for necessary renovation, while their rents were subsidized by the government.
(Interview, May 4, 2011)
support for various festivals, events, and programs, and selecting and sup-
porting Totatoga artists.
In its selection of the artists, TMC imposed specific criteria, with a goal of
having young and motivated local artists play pivotal roles in initiating, and
participating in, various activities such as local festivals, educational pro-
grams, street improvement projects, and so on. Totatoga depended on artists’
volunteerism, and its artists were not to settle for being the passive recipients
of government rent subsidies. They were required to show strong commit-
ment to engage with the local community (interview with the TMC manager,
May 4, 2011).
Because Totatoga was a citizen-suggested solution to the leftover
US$250,000, the local government did not have much expectation in regard
to what kinds of outcomes it would bring (interview with a city official, May
4, 2011). Also, compared with other similar projects, Totatoga’s budget was
negligible. For instance, the city of Incheon spent about US$40 to US$50
million to create its cultural village, and a number of Seoul’s district govern-
ments were planning to develop cultural villages with US$8 million budgets
on average (J.-G. Kim 2010). Yet a vibrant cultural scene, which many other
costly government-led projects failed to develop, began to emerge in Totatoga,
attracting interest from a number of local governments and cultural institu-
tions (J.-G. Kim 2012; H.-K. Kim 2013; Oh 2012). It also received interna-
tional visitors—for example, from Shanghai, Kyushu, Yokohama, and
Fukuoka (J.-G. Kim 2012). The Busan government, which only had a small
role in the project as a funder, was indeed surprised by the unexpected atten-
tion and interest from other localities and media, heralding Totatoga as a
cost-effective, alternative kind of urban revitalization strategy (interview
with a city official, December 5, 2013).
Totatoga was initially designed as a three-year program, and after the three
years, artists were expected to become financially independent and pay their
own rent. Yet, given the unexpected attention it received, the local govern-
ment decided to extend Totatoga (interview with a city official, December 5,
2013). The government halved the rent subsidy for the first-term artists, who
had to either reduce the size of their spaces or pay half of the rent, and invited
more artists. With a total of 55 individual artists and 15 art groups, the second
round of Totatoga started in 2013.
Figure 2. The yearly growth rate of market land prices (years 2001−2010).
Source. Korea Land Information system; http://klis.busan.go.kr/sis/main.do
Figure 3. Land price changes in Joongang-Dong locating Totatoga (years 2006–
2015).
Source. Busan Property Information; http://kras.busan.go.kr/land_info/info/baseInfo/baseInfo.do
I am very glad to be back here . . . When little, [we] used to come here to watch
movies, eat and drink, and simply have fun with friends. Since the colonial
period, this had been the heart of Busan, and where people’s memories lie. For
this reason, this is the perfect place for artists. I don’t really want to see this
place changing with new developments. (Interview with an artist, May 5, 2011)
The area today is slowly rebuilding its reputation as the arts and cultural
center of Busan. Cafés and small restaurants have newly opened, and new
independent artists have also started to move into the district on their own, to
enjoy the network of the artist community, injecting new vitality into the area
(H.-K. Kim 2013; interview with the TMC director, December 6, 2013).
Land prices of the area also show definite changes before and since Totatoga’s
beginning (see Figure 3), implying that the area is gradually shedding its
previous image of a shabby downtown and beginning to experience a renewed
sense of vitality. Mostly ranging between a 1% and 3% increase per year after
Totatoga, it does not yet indicate gentrification. Nevertheless, TMC is aware
of the possibility and is cautiously watching the new developments (inter-
view with the TMC director, December 6, 2013). In hopes of slowing down
the gentrification, some of the first-generation Totatoga artists purchased
their spaces recently, continuing to use them as their own workspaces or to
Joo and Park 859
open up a small café. The artists themselves are also asking the city govern-
ment to purchase the old Han Seong Baek building—one of the key historic
buildings in the district (interview with an artist, December 6, 2013). Totatoga
and its artists are keenly aware of how the development impulse pervades
Korean cities, and are trying to come up with some countermeasures.
Conclusion
Cities have long been predominantly viewed through an economic lens, as
“urban growth machines,” and, consequently, those who “made” cities dif-
fered from those who lived in them. Local citizens, more often than not, had
little power over urban development decisions, which were led by the state
and the corporate interests attempting to attract more people and capital,
hoping to make cities prominent as well as profitable. Such a growth orien-
tation has been argued against by the shrinking cities literature, which has
been emphasizing a need for a paradigm shift in urban policies. Despite the
general consensus for an alternative strategy, exactly how cities could pur-
sue such strategies has been underrepresented in the literature.
The Totatoga case explored in this article contributes to the shrinking
cities debate by explaining in detail the governance and operations of a suc-
cessful alternative strategy that emerged when the conventional growth-
driven strategies began to face limits, especially in an East Asian city
context well known for its strong growth-first ideologies. Moving beyond
criticizing the persisting growth orientation or calling for a different para-
digm, we have sought to portray an example of what is possible: a creative
solution to a shrinking downtown, focusing on improving the “use values”
over the “exchange values” of urban land, which had not been happening
with the prevailing public–private partnerships centered on furthering
urban growth. We argue that Totatoga, focusing on enhancing local cultural
assets and improving local residents’ urban experiences, unswayed by the
862 Urban Affairs Review 53(5)
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Lee
Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, and a grant
(14AUDP-B077107-03) from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport,
Republic of Korea.
Notes
1. See B.-G. Park, Hill, and Saito (2012) for studies on how neoliberalism is taking
hold in Asian cities with developmentalist traditions and histories.
2. Hospers (2013) classified policies dealing with shrinkage into four categories:
(1) trivializing or turning a blind eye to shrinkage, (2) countering shrinkage with
growth strategies, (3) accepting shrinkage and seeking to manage its impacts,
and, finally, (4) utilizing shrinkage, which is about seeing the shrinking situation
as an opportunity.
Joo and Park 863
3. The selection of interviewees from the local government and the Totatoga
Management Center was straightforward. We interviewed two local government
officials who were each in charge of the Totatoga project in 2011 and in 2013.
From the Totatoga Management Center, we interviewed the first center director
(Cha, Jae-Keun), a manager (in 2011), and the current center director.
4. The selection of interviewees from artists and local residents was biased, as they
were introduced to us by the Totatoga Management Center. However, a survey
answered by the majority of artists, newspaper articles, and other secondary data
were used to cross-check the interview data.
5. This survey was originally conducted by one of the authors for the purpose
of carrying out social network analysis of Totatoga. Our article also draws
on this data for further triangulation and to support our arguments in the case
study.
6. Korea has six “Metropolitan Cities” (Incheon, Busan, Daejeon, Gwangju,
Daegu, and Ulsan), and Seoul as the “Special City.” The “Seoul Metropolitan
Area” comprises the Seoul Special City, Incheon Metropolitan City, and the
Gyeonggi Province. The article refers to the Busan Metropolitan City as
“Busan.”
7. Chaebols are the large conglomerates that dominate Korea’s economy. Notable
examples include Samsung, Hyundai, LG, and SK
8. For this goal, Busan seeks to strengthen the port functions, as well as to enhance
the city as a transportation infrastructure hub, and to promote maritime tourism,
technology, and industries (Seo, Cho, and Skelton 2015).
9. The city’s old downtown area (comprising Jung-gu, Seo-gu, and Dong-gu) has
17% of its population aged over 65, while 11.3% is Busan’s average. The data
are based on the 2010 Census.
10. In their city profile of Busan, Seo, Cho, and Skelton (2015) analyzed Busan’s
current development strategies into the two main policies of the Asian Gateway
promotion and the Soft Power schemes.
11. Despite our triangulation of data from the interviews, a survey, the Totatoga offi-
cial home pages (www.tttg.kr and www.facebook.com/totatoga), newspapers,
and other secondary materials in examining the case, in the text, we have cited
only the key sources.
12. The latest program titles offered for September to November 2015 are as fol-
lows: Recycling Art, Thinking Through Photography, A Modern Historical Look
at Busan’s Villages, Art Pieces Made by Me, and Introductory Guide to Local
Markets (www.tttg.kr).
13. The videos are uploaded at www.facebook.com/totatoga, which is also actively
updated with many other examples of ongoing artists–residents collaborative
projects, educational and cultural programs, and festivals.
References
Bae, Yooil, and Jefferey M. Sellers. 2007. “Globalization, the Developmental State
and the Politics of Urban Growth in Korea: A Multilevel Analysis.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31 (3): 543–60.
864 Urban Affairs Review 53(5)
Baek, Hyun-Choong. 2009. “Is There No Place for Creative Village in Busan?” Busan
Daily, July 28. Accessed July 5, 2015. http://news20.busan.com/controller/news-
Controller.jsp?newsId=20090727000209. [In Korean]
Beauregard, Robert. 2003. Voices of Decline: The Postwar Fate of US Cities. Malden:
Blackwell.
Brenner, Neil, and Nik Theodore. 2002. “Cities and the Geographies of Actually
Existing Neoliberalism.” Antipode 34 (3): 349–79.
Castells, Manuel. 1992. “Four Asian Tigers with a Dragon Head: A Comparative
Analysis of the State, Economy and Society in the Asian Pacific Rim.” In State
and Development in the Asian Pacific Rim, edited by Richard Appelbaum and
Jeffrey Henderson, 33–70. London: SAGE.
Cha, Jae-Keun. 2011. “The Story of Totatoga—The Central Downtown’s Creative
Space.” Webzine Culture & Tourism 4:121–42. Accessed July 5, 2015. http://
ebook.kcti.re.kr:22000/src/viewer/main.php?host=main&site=20110427_175
109&category=1&page=121&popup=1&ref=https://www.kcti.re.kr/webzine/
ibook_11apr.html. [In Korean]
Cha, Jae-Keun. 2014. “The Achievements and Tasks of the Busan Urban Cultural
Policy [Busan-shi doshi munhwa jeongchaek-e sunggwawa gwaje].” In Beyond
Creative Cities [changjo doshi-reul neomeoseo], edited by Se-Hoon Park, 209–
40. Paju: Nanam Books.
Chon, Soo-Hyun. 1992. “Political Economy of Regional Development in Korea.” In
State and Development in the Asian Pacific Rim, edited by Richard Appelbaum
and Jeffrey Henderson, 150–75. London: SAGE.
Cox, Kevin. 1995. “Globalisation, Competition, and the Politics of Local Economic
Development.” Urban Studies 32 (2): 213–24.
Daniels, Peter, K. C. Ho, and Thomas Hutton. 2012. New Economic Spaces in
Asian Cities: From Industrial Restructuring to the Cultural Turn. New York:
Routledge.
Douglass, Mike. 1998. “World City Formation on the Asia Pacific Rim: Poverty,
Everyday Forms of Civil Society, and Environmental Management.” In Cities for
Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age, edited by Mike
Douglass and John Friedmann, 107–37. London: John Wiley.
Dryzek, John. 1996. Democracy in Capitalist Times. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press.
Evans, Graeme. 2005. “Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Culture’s
Contribution to Regeneration.” Urban Studies 42 (5–6): 959–83.
Fainstein, Susan. 2001. The City Builders: Property Development in New York and
London, 1980–2000. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Großmann, Katrin, Marco Bontje, Annegret Haase, and Vlad Mykhnenko. 2013.
“Shrinking Cities: Notes for the Further Research Agenda.” Cities 35:221–25.
Hackworth, Jason. 2007. The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and
Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
Harding, Alan. 1994. “Urban Regimes and Growth Machines: Toward a Cross-
National Research Agenda.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 29 (3): 356–82.
Joo and Park 865
Author Biographies
Yu-Min Joo is an assistant professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
National University of Singapore. She holds a PhD in urban and regional planning
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She researches and publishes on urban
development and policy issues in Asia, particularly on the topics of urban governance,
shrinking cities, city branding, megaprojects, and mega-events.
Se Hoon Park is a research fellow at the Korea Research Institute for Human
Settlements, Republic of Korea. He studied urban studies and planning at Seoul
National University and University of Tokyo. While being involved in various
national government commissioned projects, he publishes academic papers and pol-
icy reports on urban regeneration, cultural city, and ethnic places in Korean cities.