Massive High-Rise Complexes

I’m writing this after seeing the post:

(Why urban planners hate Korean apartments)

I enjoy reading what urban planners write, and I feel like they generally tend to be critical of apartment complexes (Dae-danji). I mostly agree with their points, but I also acknowledge that I might only be consuming those articles or videos because I already hold those views—kind of like how algorithms feed you content based on your political leanings.

I don't have a choice but to live in one of these complexes, but I always felt this vague dissatisfaction. Reading the urban planners helped me pinpoint exactly what was inconvenient. So, following up on that post, I’ll share my thoughts, influenced by those planners.

My claim is this: Let’s avoid massive complexes. Mid-rise apartments (around 8–12 floors?) are better than high-rises. This can be achieved by increasing the Building Coverage Ratio (BCR) to maintain the necessary Floor Area Ratio (FAR). High-rises should only be used when an overwhelmingly high FAR is unavoidable.

First off, the comment in the previous post saying, “So you want us to live in detached houses?” seems irrelevant to my thoughts—and likely to the thoughts of most urban planners too. For starters, I like apartments. They are convenient, affordable, and safe. Most urban planners probably feel the same, because if you only have detached houses without apartments, you can’t achieve the necessary density, and cities become inefficient. Criticizing apartments is often misunderstood as favoring North American suburbs, but most urban planners criticize those suburbs heavily too. They are incredibly inefficient.

Instead, the preferred style seems to be apartments developed on much smaller parcels than massive complexes, often seen in Europe. Even downtown apartments in the US are developed this way. These buildings usually have similar BCRs; in complete downtowns, they go high-rise, and in quieter areas, the height adjusts accordingly. Since these are still apartments, facilities like parking are obviously well managed.

Let's start with massive complexes (Dae-danji). They are very likely to break the flow of the surrounding street network. Gated communities seen abroad also receive a lot of criticism, but the ones I’ve seen often go unnoticed unless you intentionally go there, as you rarely need to pass through them anyway. Since they are usually detached housing areas, the density is low, meaning they aren't centrally located. You rarely see gated communities near subway stations either, as the residents are people who have chauffeurs driving them around.

But our massive complexes in Korea are different. The recent controversy in Gangdong-gu is an extreme example, but even beyond that, there are so many cases where a large complex stretches across and blocks a spot where a through-road would be really useful. This is inevitable because complexes are built where people are densely concentrated.

Even in complexes that don't restrict entry (the expensive ones that do are the worst offenders), the paths are often designed to be circuitous under the guise of creating “walking trails.” This makes the trip significantly longer compared to a simple, straight public road. Ironically, back in the 'matchbox era,' the roads were efficient. This design choice decreases the attractiveness of passing through the complex, discouraging outside access. While this is better for the residents inside, it inconveniences the lives of external pedestrians.

Another disadvantage of Dae-danji is the separation between commercial zones and residential areas. Of course, some people prefer this, so it can be a benefit. If the parcels are smaller, your apartment might be right next to a commercial building. But massive complexes push commercial facilities—aside from mandatory neighborhood shops—far away.

As a result, even those distant commercial zones struggle to develop. It takes too long to get there. This makes people rely even more on Coupang. New cities, which are filled with these complexes, struggle more to develop commerce. Conversely, in places where commerce and residences are closer, people encounter shops naturally on their way home from work and don't need to rely on Coupang as much.

I believe this phenomenon is worsening now that elaborate community facilities are built inside. It's already hard to leave the complex, and now they're actively encouraging you to stay sealed inside. The outside commercial areas suffer even more. Whether the community facilities themselves are good or bad for the residents is another topic, but since outsiders can't use them, all they get is a more desolate commercial environment.

To me, the preference for these massive complexes in Korea looks like the game 'Freeze Tag' ('Dance Happily, Then Stop'). If they successfully consolidate themselves, they gain certain benefits. Especially cost reduction in management fees might be possible. But the structure is one where those who are *not* in the massive complex suffer indirect damage.

Even massive complexes can harm each other. I mentioned the Gangdong-gu pathway; the people who couldn't pass through were often residents of *other* massive complexes. A recent example is playgrounds. If you visit complex playgrounds these days, you’ll often see signs stating they are specifically for the children of that complex. While they don't literally go around catching kids from other complexes, it creates a psychological barrier. Previously, kids rotated and played at any neighborhood playground. Now, officially, they should stick to their own complex’s playground. Playgrounds, by nature, get boring after a few visits, but a slightly different one sparks interest again. Essentially, we’ve moved from a society where everyone could enjoy diverse, shared playgrounds to one where you are restricted to your own, and if you want variety, you have to pay to go to an amusement park.

The solution is development on small parcels, with facilities like playgrounds and waste disposal being provided by the state. I understand entrusting this to the private sector during the poor 60s and 70s. But now that we are a developed nation, I don't understand keeping it private. If that Gangdong-gu road had been state-owned/managed from the start, there would have been no issue.

The second point is high-rises. Is high-rise construction inevitable if population density is high? Yes, if the FAR is around 500%. It’s not necessary at the 200% level. High-rise results from low BCR. Ultra-high-rise apartments make sense in places like Manhattan or Hong Kong, where the BCR is also high.

So why is the BCR so low? They claim it's to create more park-like spaces within the complex. I think that’s part of it, but ultimately, it relates to the desire to look down on others from a great height. Architect Yoo Hyun-joon talks about this often. It aligns with why Shin Kyuk-ho desperately wanted to build Lotte World Tower. Shall we call it visual power? Originally, this power was only enjoyed by top-floor residents, but modern complexes often place shared facilities on the highest floor, granting that 'power' to all residents.

This high-rise centralization and monopolization of view harms others. First, it blocks views. It obscures the sky, mountains, and other distant landscapes. It’s like someone standing up in front of you at a concert. They get a better view, but they obstruct everyone else. Even with 'view corridors' (tong-gyeong-chuk), you only get a slight, fleeting glimpse of the background scenery, if at all. The difference between standard high-rise apartments and landmarks like Lotte World Tower/63 Building is that apartments are often poorly designed mass-productions and only residents can enter. Landmark buildings, conversely, are usually thoughtfully designed, so even if they block a view, they are somewhat acceptable. Crucially, they have observation decks, meaning anyone can pay and go up. The view from the top is thus shared almost equally, preventing the creation of a rigid power hierarchy based on sight.

Therefore, I believe achieving the same density through smaller, mid-rise developments is better. And the service facilities provided by massive complexes should be nationalized/publicly funded so everyone can share them.

However, as seen in the comments on the previous post, many people seem satisfied with the current style. Of course, repeating myself, the praise isn't for the apartment structure itself; I also love apartments. So, if this is truly what most people want, then I agree that development will inevitably move in this direction. A related point: urban planners generally aim to create walkable cities, while most people often prefer reducing pedestrian access in favor of driving. This connects back to the complexes—the disadvantages of the Dae-danji are less noticeable to drivers and even encourage a car-centric lifestyle. That’s the direction we'll go if more people want it.

That said, I found it somewhat surprising that Clien generally favors massive high-rise development. I always thought my preference (small parcels, mid-rise) aligned somewhat with my left-leaning tendencies. I expected more people here to share my views, but the opposite was true, which suggests this opinion might be quite independent of political stance.