• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.21-35
• /
• 2018

In recent years, there has been a tendency to reuse 'landscapes of memory,' including industrial heritages, modern cultural heritages, and post-industrial parks, as public spaces in many cities. Among the various types of landscapes, 'modern historic landscapes', which were formed in the 19th and 20th centuries, are landscapes where the debate between conservation and removal is most frequent, according to the change of evaluation and recognition of modern history. This study examines conflicts between conservation and removal around modern historic landscapes and explores the value judgment criteria and the process of formation of those landscapes, as highlighted in the case of the demolition controversy of the old Japanese general government building in Seoul, which was dismantled in 1995. First, this study reviews newspaper articles, television news and debate programs from 1980-1999 and some articles related to the controversy of the Japanese general government building. Then it draws the following six factors as the main issues of the demolition controversy of the building: symbolic location, discoveries and responses of new historical facts, reaction and intervention of a related country, financial conditions, function and usage of the landscape, changes of urban, historical and architectural policies. Based on these issues, this study examines the conflicts between symbolic values that play an important role in the formation of modern historic landscapes and determines conservation or removal, and the utility of functional values that solve the problems and respond to criticisms that arise in the process of forming the modern historic landscape. Especially, it is noted that the most important factor that makes the decision is the symbolic values, although the determination of the conservation or removal of modern historic landscapes has changed according to changes in historical perceptions of modern history. Today, the modern historic landscape is an important site for urban design, and still has historical issues to be agreed upon and addressed. Thi study has contemporary significance from the point that it divides the many values of modern historic landscapes into symbolic values and functional values, evaluates these, and reviews the background social context.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.105-119
• /
• 2021

The innovation cluster is formed by cooperation and networking among a number of actors, including companies, universities, research institutes, government and other supporting organizations, but the main subject of innovation in the venture ecosystem, which can be said to be the core of the innovation cluster, is the enterprise. Therefore, enterprises in innovation cluster can be seen as a major user of the innovation cluster policy. In order for the policy to be executed smoothly, policy acceptance is important. However, existing research on policy prioritization tends to be centered on policy providers, so it is necessary to check them from the perspective of policy users. Accordingly, this study conducted discussions from a two-way perspective to establish the correct policy direction through a balanced perspective between a policy provider-centered top-down perspective and a policy user's bottom-up perspective. First, the factors for activating the innovation cluster (three factors in the first level and 14 factors in the second level) were derived through prior research and expert interviews. After that, the importance of the factors for activating the innovation cluster was analyzed using AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) for the policy provider group and the user group in the Daedeok Innopolis, a representative case of innovation cluster policy. As a result of analyzing the importance of the innovation cluster activation factors from the perspectives of policy providers and users, some similarities were also seen, but overall differences in mutual perception were found. It was found that the policy provider group focused on innovation creation factors, while the policy user group viewed innovation creation, clusters, and industrial location factors from a more balanced perspective. This study is meaningful in that it deals with both perspectives in a balanced way by expanding the targets from the existing policy provider-centered research to policy users. In addition, practical contributions exist in the aspect of providing basic data so that policies can be carried out based on corporate needs in fostering innovation clusters.