Uneven development of housing and real price increase in South Korea

“The Economist house-price indices”
https://www.economist.com/…/graphicd…/2018/02/daily-chart-5…

The Economist has provided interesting visualisation of housing price index for 27 economies and 20 cities in the US. They have correctly identified that “FINANCIAL media focus most of their attention on stocks and bonds, but the world’s biggest asset class is actually residential property. With an estimated value of about $200trn, homes are collectively worth about three times as much as all publicly traded stocks.” Property wealth is what underpins most people’s prospect of well-being.

According to the data, Britain has seen a 211% real price increase of real estate between 1986 and 2017. I assume this is the national average, and London would have experienced a much higher increase. In South Korea, 30% increase in real price terms between 2000 and 2017, but 0% increase between 2009 and 2017. After the 2008-9 global financial crisis, it may be hypothesised that South Korea has experienced a greater degree of uneven development of housing market, which concentrates on Seoul and other major metropolises.

The Economist 데이터 시각화 정보에 따르면, 한국의 부동산 가격이 일단 2000년도에 비하면 2017년 4분기 현재 무척 (30%) 오른 것으로 나온다. 2009년에 비해서는 0%. 이는 전국 평균 가격일 가능성이 높으니, 불균등 발전에 따라 서울과 지방의 차이, 또는 대도시와 군소도시의 차이 등을 볼 수는 없는 데이터인 듯. 오히려 2008년 금융위기 이후 전국적으로 불균등 발전이 더욱 심화되었으며, 이것이 0%로 수렴되었다고 봐야 하지 않을까 싶다. 부동산 가격에 대한 체감지수, 언론의 관심은 대부분 수도권, 특히 서울을 대상으로 할 때, 위의 데이터에 근거해서 그다지 오르지 않았다고 결론을 내리는 것은 서울과 대도시의 특수성을 간과하게 되는 듯 해서 서울/대도시 중심의 부동산 이데올로기를 더욱 공고히 하는데 기여할 듯 싶다.

반면 영국은 2000년 대비 82% 실질가격 상승으로 나타나는데, 1986년과 비교해 보면 실질가격 기준 211% 상승한 것으로 나타난다. 런던 가격을 따져 보면 이보다 훨씬 더 많이 상승했을 것이라 생각한다.

From The Economist (2018)

New book chapter on the fallacy of Songdo (Smart) City, South Korea

9780415745512Great to see the publication of my chapter “Envisioned by the state: Entrepreneurial urbanism and the making of Songdo City, South Korea” in this new edited volume Mega-urbanization in the Global South: Fast Cities and New Urban Utopias of the Postcolonial State, edited by . In: Ayona Datta and Abdul Shaban. I look forward to receiving its printed copy.

For viewing the Word version and its download, please click here.

Below is an excerpt from the chapter’s introduction:

So much has been said about Songdo City in recent years in both academic and practitioner circles. International media has also taken part to inflate the reputation of Songdo City, hailed initially as an eco-city, then as a ubiquitous city (or U-city) and now a smart city (Shwayri, 2013; Shin, Park and Sonn, forthcoming; Kim, 2010). The New York Times went even further to dub it “Korea’s High-Tech Utopia” (O’Connell, 2005). Sometimes its own promotional material puts all these together and simply refers to Songdo as an eco-friendly ubiquitous smart city (IFEZ Authority, 2007). Governments elsewhere see Songdo as a reference for their own mega-projects to create a brand new city from the scratch (see El Telégrafo, 2012 for example on the construction of Yachay City in Ecuador). However, Songdo has come to cater exclusively for the needs of domestic and global investors as well as the rich who have financial resources to grab upmarket real estate properties. It may indeed be an urban utopia, built on a reclaimed tabula rasa and promoted by the state, merging together technological innovation, fixed assets investment, real estate speculation and financialisation, for exclusive use of the rich and the powerful.

 

 

China Policy Institute Blog » China’s Speculative Urbanism and the Built Environment

The following is an invited contribution to the China Policy Institute Blog (thanks to Jonathan Sullivan for the invitation and editorial support). The theme of the blog at the time of the invitation was ‘environment’, and to me, this cannot be detached from the issue of China’s speculative urbanism that has been sweeping the country for years.

  • Updated on 12 October 2014: A related piece is published in the CITY journal in September 2014. It is entitled Contesting Speculative Urbanisation and Strategising Discontents. Click here to read the paper. Related blog post can be found here.

China Policy Institute Blog » China’s Speculative Urbanism and the Built Environment

Published on 24 April 2013

Critics have been speculating since the 1990s that China had already entered an ‘urban age,’ with a large number of migrants unaccounted for in the national census. But it was not until 2011 when the majority of the country’s national population were to be found, officially, in urban areas for the first time in history. From the viewpoint of the built environment, China’s urbanisation has entailed a massive accumulation of the country’s fixed assets through investments in infrastructure, facilities and real estate properties. Key cities have led the way. For instance, in the case of Beijing, the city’s share of total fixed asset investment in its gross regional product was more than 40 per cent for much of the 2000s. More than half of Beijing’s fixed asset investment during this period went into the real estate sector. Such a mode of urban accumulation plays out in a geographically uneven way. In comparison with Beijing, the share of Tianjin’s total fixed asset investment in its gross regional product was more than 50 per cent in 2008, and rapidly rose to 71 per cent in 2010, but the city’s investment in the real estate sector remained around 20 per cent or less during the first eight years of the 2000s. Continue reading