• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.37-52
• /
• 2010

The main purpose of this study is to examine how place representation is related to the formation of urban parks in Seoul, which began at the end of the 19th century. In order to grasp place representation, the hypothesis of this study is that most urban parks are undertaken with the idea of monumentality and symbolism or memories of the place itself. Diverse ways of representation through physical or non-physical aspects of symbolism, monumentality, and place memory are summarized as follows. First, in the case of the physical aspects of representation in the parks, monumentality and symbolism are expressed mostly through monuments or statues. In the case that the intention of the park is commemorative, celebrative elements are more actively utilized. In other cases, symbolic sculptures or statues, which are randomly designated by the government, are so often used regardless of the overarching concept of the urban park. In addition, in the case of place memory, monumentality or symbolism are commonly represented through bronze statues or partial remnants of the past. Recently, however, the site in itself has been constructed to coordinate the memories of a certain place into the configuration of the park. Secondly, in relation to the non-physical representation elements, many urban parks tend to reveal monumentality or symbolism through the names they are given. Recently, this tendency has significantly dropped, but some places of parksare frequently denominated in consideration of place memory. In the case of events held in parks, parks which were constructed in the beginning of the park movement, such as Tapgol Park, hold certain events to commemorate certain causes that took place in those days. On the other hand, the main purpose of recently-constructed urban parks relating to place memory is to encourage citizens to participate in events in a variety of ways.

• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.135-154
• /
• 2012

The goal of this paper is to analyze the Freedom Center Apacle in Seoul designed by Kin Soo Geun who was a leading architect in Korean Modern architecture. Freedom Center was built in 1963, that was the largest monumental building to support military regime during cold war period in Korea. This paper deals with historical background of construction of Freedom Center and its characteristics compared to similar monumental buildings, especially Corbusier's Chandigar and Kenzo Tange's Hiroshima Peace Center. The Monumentality in Freedom Center came from the reference to these two buildings and its site plan. This paper tried to show how similar the layout of buildings between the Freedom Center and Peace Center. The origin of the sublime aura in Tange's linear layout of Peace Center is from Japanese Famous Shrine(Jinku). Kim translated it to serve the ideological purpose to protect from socialist regime in the name of freedom. Its over-scaled roof and weak contents showed Freedom center was a kind of theaterical setting belong to formalist building. But in spite of its symbolic and representational gesture its also had a architectonic physical quality to make it a monument. The change and duration in time testified the autonomous power of architecture in Freedom Center. Freedom Center was also important for using the exposed concrete and its superior finish. It was influenced not from western way of Benton Brut which was usually called New Brutalism but Japanese way of treating expose concrete. In spite of its limits Freedom center achieved new trend and sensibility in Korean Modern Architecture.