Description
Despite the conventional belief that cities are either growing or shrinking, the reality of urban space is far more complex and contradictory. Within the same city, large-scale development and high-density growth can occur in one area, while only a few blocks away, population decline, weakened functions and physical neglect take place simultaneously. This coexistence of growth and shrinkage, known as the shrinkage–growth duality, is not simply a spatial pattern, but a core mechanism that shapes how cities function and where structural tensions emerge.Traditional urban planning theories have long assumed that cities evolve along linear trajectories. From Burgess’s concentric zone model (1925) and Hoyt’s sector model (1939) to Molotch’s growth machine theory (1976) and New Urbanism (Duany et al., 2000), cities are typically viewed as inherently growth-oriented, with shrinkage treated as a temporary deviation. Yet in reality, urban evolution is far more fragmented and layered.
In Seoul, for instance, the area around Seoul Station, with its high-density developments and advanced transport hubs, represents a clear growth node. In contrast, neighbouring Huam-dong remains a deteriorating low-rise residential area, relatively untouched by investment and development. Next to it, Haebangchon has pursued an alternative growth path, not through infrastructure or capital, but through cultural value and policy-driven regeneration. In other cities, similar dualities emerge: central reinvestment coexists with peripheral neglect in Detroit, while inflation and displacement occur alongside redevelopment in Berlin and Barcelona. Growth and shrinkage are not separated but entangled, often triggering each other.
Growth does not necessarily bring stability or prosperity. Selective redevelopment channels capital and infrastructure into certain locations, while excluding adjacent ones and deepening their decline. Scholars such as Harvey (1989) and Sassen (2001) highlight how this mechanism reinforces fragmentation and socio-economic imbalance in urban structures. In today’s cities, growth can be a driver of shrinkage, while shrinkage may generate future growth potential, forming a cyclical and interactive relationship.
Addressing these dynamics cannot rely solely on small-scale regeneration. Shrinkage must be recognised as part of urban evolution, and reframed through adaptive urbanism (Hollander & Németh, 2019). Planned shrinkage allows for land reallocation, ecological networks and spatial reorganisation, shifting policy from smart growth to smart shrinkage.
Seoul presents a compelling testbed where theory and practice intersect. Kim and Lee (2022) argue that redevelopment and concentrated investment in Seoul intensify socio-spatial disparities. Seongsu-dong clearly reflects this contradiction. One side is rapidly developing through branding, renovation and luxury apartments, while the other retains ageing industrial and residential areas excluded from the development corridor. This kind of discontinuous urbanism (Oswalt et al., 2018) defines the reality of today’s cities.
| Period | 18 Aug 2025 → 26 Aug 2025 |
|---|---|
| Event type | Workshop |
| Location | Seoul, Korea, Republic ofShow on map |
| Degree of Recognition | International |