• Land and Housing Review
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.51-65
• /
• 2021

There were strong criticisms against the joint development method: the redevelopment corporation and developers would achieve the whole development profit. The existing tenants who lost their housing in the site argued their right to reside in the site after the development was completed. There was also strong political pressure that the Roh Tae-woo governing administration should resolve the social inequality caused by the situation. In such circumstances, it was introduced that a certain proportion of public rental housing should be built in the redevelopment site; then the government took over the dwellings at a price of construction and allocated them to the existing tenants. The aims of this paper are to understand the rationale behind the inclusion of the public rental housing in the redevelopment sites; and to investigate to what extent the legislation was implemented appropriately. Although the legislation was introduced in Seoul from August 1989, it was not until May 2005 when it was implemented nationwide. At the beginning, there was an ambiguous rule that the number of public housing to be included should be limited to the number of households who would want to remain in the redeveloped site. In 2005 the Seoul metropolitan authority introduced a mandatory proportion; 17% of the total housing delivered in the site should be public rental homes. Since then the proportion. The proportion has been fluctuated by the political agenda of each ruling party: the conservative tended to reduce the proportion, whilst the opposition parties increased the proportion. Currently the proportion is 20% of the total stock to be built. Initially the size of the public housing was exceptionally small- less than 40 m² but it has increased up to 60 m² since 2010. The rental price was reasonably lower than market rent. The competition toward redevelopment rental housing that are vacant due to move or death of tenants was very high; it was given to one household out of nine eligible households in 2020.