Three decades ago, South Korean director Kim Dong-won made two important documentaries about the struggles and everyday life of the people of Songhak Maeul.¹ Yet Songhak Maeul remains little-known as a successful case of community capacity building in a marginalised neighbourhood in Seoul. This article provides a historical background and explains the impact of market-driven urban redevelopment on neighbourhood communities in Seoul. It revisits community activism in Songhak Maeul and highlights some of its achievements and legacies that deserve closer attention as a reminder of the importance of resilient neighbourhood communities in the face of growing environmental and social challenges in cities.

Marginalised neighbourhoods in Seoul

South Korea (hereafter Korea) experienced rapid economic and urban growth in the past, spurred on by an interventionist state and fuelled by speculative markets. Its industrialisation led to a mass migration of rural populations to urban centres, most notably to Seoul. In a decade, its population grew from 2.361.196 in 1960 to 5.311.569 in 1970.² By the time of the 1988 Olympics, the population of the city had surpassed ten million. This unprecedented urban growth led to an enormous housing shortage, which hit migrants from the rural countryside the hardest. They had little choice but to live in overcrowded shantytowns, which, by the 1970s, housed almost a third of the city’s population.³

“The unprecedented urban growth led to an enormous housing shortage, which hit migrants from the rural countryside the hardest.”

Despite the poor living conditions, these shanty towns were characterised by a strong social cohesion and a shared sense of solidarity among residents. Many impoverished migrants often settled close to relatives and friends who helped them find housing and jobs, while also offering social and emotional support. In a 1993 study, the Korea National Housing Corporation found that for 74% of residents, “kinship ties and friendly neighbourhoods” along with “cheap housing price and affordable rent”, were among the main reasons for staying in marginalised neighbourhoods regardless of poor living conditions.⁴

From the outset, the government tried to improve living conditions in marginalised neighbourhoods by encouraging self-help and community capacity building, with limited success. Failing to increase the housing supply, the government then focused on wholesale demolition of marginalised neighbourhoods and the subsequent construction of new residential complexes.⁵ Although such urban redevelopment eventually increased housing supply, the new housing was unaffordable for the majority of tenants. As one study at the time noted, “the public and private sectors focused on providing market housing, with the construction of non-profit housing for the poor being completely neglected”.⁶

“The Asian Coalition for Housing Rights has described urban redevelopment in Seoul as a total war against the urban poor.”

As a result, market-driven urban redevelopment of marginalised neighbourhoods led to mass evictions, the displacement of residents, and the decline of neighbourhood communities, contributing to growing social inequalities in the city. The Asian Coalition for Housing Rights has described urban redevelopment in Seoul as “a total war against the urban poor”.⁷ In response, various forms of grassroots mobilisation and social movements have emerged in marginalised neighbourhoods during the late 1980s to protect the rights of residents and preserve neighbourhood communities.⁸

Urban redevelopment of Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni

The transformation of Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni illustrates the impact of market-driven urban redevelopment on marginalised neighbourhoods in Seoul. In the early 1990s, the area was among the largest shantytowns in central Seoul. Its origins date back to the rapid industrialisation of the city, when poor migrants began to settle in the hilly areas around the city centre. The majority of about 76.000 residents (see Table 1) in the area were tenants, surviving on irregular and poorly paid jobs in construction and garment industries. Less than a quarter of the houses were owner-occupied, and 87% of these were illegal.⁹ Buildings were overcrowded, and living conditions were severely inadequate.

“The transformation of Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni illustrates the impact of market-driven urban redevelopment on marginalised neighbourhoods in Seoul.”

In 1993, the Seoul Metropolitan Government approved a large-scale clearance of the area and the construction of a new residential complex with 11.032 housing units. This urban redevelopment was intended to increase housing supply and improve living conditions in Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni. In reality, however, it brought little good for residents, while mostly benefiting absentee landlords who rushed to evict tenants to speed up urban redevelopment and pocket profits. Displaced tenants were left with no choice but to accept negligible compensation or wait for the new public rental housing to be built, often losing both their homes and livelihoods along the way.¹⁰

Despite this, most of the residents had left Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni by 1994. However, about 350 families had nowhere to go and decided to stay in the area. Construction companies and landlord unions attempted to evict them by force, hiring thugs to intimidate residents and force them out of their homes.¹¹ In response, the remaining residents resisted and formed the Hawang 2–1 District Tenants Action Committee in 1993, which successfully organised and led the struggle against evictions and for housing rights over the next three years.

With support of community activists and civil society organisations, the residents eventually succeeded in pressuring construction companies and landlord unions to provide on-site temporary housing, which they saw as essential to their “fundamental human right to sustainable community living”.¹² This arrangement allowed them to remain in the neighbourhood during the urban redevelopment while maintaining their jobs until the new public rental housing was available. In 1995, six temporary residential complexes with 240 housing units were completed in Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni.

Community capacity building in Songhak Maeul

Songhak Maeul was the largest and most active of these residential complexes.¹³ It started with 378 residents in about one hundred housing units, and included a community hall, a classroom with a library, a kindergarten, a children’s playground, a cooperative shop, and a small garment workshop.¹⁴ Although living conditions were harsh, everyday life in Songhak Maeul was reportedly one of strong social cohesion, and a shared sense of solidarity and community. In the words of the residents, Songhak Maeul felt like a “big family” where “people really cared for each other”.¹⁵

The strong social cohesion and shared sense of solidarity and community were largely the result of sustained community activism. Starting in the late 1980s, several experienced community activists moved to live in Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni and worked with Catholic organisations for the urban poor to alleviate poverty in the area. These grassroots efforts strengthened the community capacity, which later not only sustained the anti-eviction and housing rights struggles, but ultimately led to the formation of a self-reliant community in Songhak Maeul. The move to the temporary residential complex seemed to have provided an opportunity for the community to “overcome the social and cultural marginalisation of poor tenants and improve their living conditions”.¹⁶

“The strong social cohesion, sense of solidarity and community were largely the result of community activism in the past.”

Between 1995 and 1999, residents of Songhak Maeul held regular monthly meetings, ran community childcare and after-school centres, reading clubs, adult education activities, community workshops, producer and consumer cooperatives, and established the Nongol Credit Union.¹⁷ These community organisations became instrumental in building community capacity and sustaining a self-reliant community. They also played a role in supporting residents as they transitioned into the newly completed public rental housing following the closure of the temporary residential complexes.

	1990	1998	2000	2010	2020
Geumho 1-dong	24.497	11.756	11.643	16.218	15.855
Haengdang 2-dong	22.546	9.392	28.966	26.060	24.543
Wangsimni 2-dong	28.950	18.332	15.604	19.161	17.755
Total population	75.993	39.480	56.213	61.439	58.153

During this period, the population of the area increased significantly, from 9.392 in 1998 to 28.996 in 2000 (see Table 1), while the proportion of owner-occupied housing had risen from 18% to 40%.¹⁸ These demographic changes suggest that middle-class newcomers gradually gentrified what had been a marginalised neighbourhood a few years ago. Unlike former residents of Songhak Maeul, the newcomers showed little interest in community organisations, which contributed to their crisis in the early 2000s. After 2008, however, community activism regained momentum, gradually shifting its focus from struggles for housing rights to improving both individual and collective consumption and self-governance. Meanwhile, the Nongol Credit Union has maintained its role in supporting community capacity building in Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni and beyond the area.

Building community capacity for resilient neighbourhoods and cities

Community capacity building encompasses resource mobilisation, skills development, social learning and innovation, leadership cultivation and strategic partnerships that can enable neighbourhood communities to effectively identify and address challenges in their living environment through collective action.¹⁹ In other words, community capacity building can empower communities to make decisions and take action in their neighbourhoods.²⁰ At the same time, community capacity building has been recognised for its role in sustaining self-reliant neighbourhood communities that can withstand internal and external challenges by collectively coping with, adapting to and shaping change.²¹ In this sense, it is key to resilient neighbourhoods.

Songhak Maeul serves as an inspiring case of community capacity building in marginalised neighbourhoods in Seoul. Its success was largely due to community activism that empowered residents to overcome social marginalisation by developing their skills, establishing community organisations and cultivating community leadership. Moreover, community activists recognised the importance of building strategic partnerships not only with neighbourhood communities, but also with civil society organisations and the public institutions to cope with, adopt to and shape change in Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni. For example, they learned from other marginalised neighbourhoods in Korea and Japan, were active in the Korean Community Organisation Information Network and the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, worked with the Korea Center for City and Environment Research, and eventually built partnerships with the Seongdong-gu District Office and the Seoul Metropolitan Government.²²

“Recognising that identifying and addressing challenges in the living environment requires collective action that extends beyond the immediate neighbourhood, was perhaps one of the most important legacies of community activism in Songhak Maeul.”

These coalitions had an important role in building community capacity in Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni. Recognising that identifying and addressing challenges in the living environment requires collective action that extends beyond the immediate neighbourhood, was perhaps one of the most important achievements and legacies of community activism in Songhak Maeul. Over the course of more than thirty years, this approach has contributed to the formation of a resilient neighbourhood community that has successfully withstood poverty, evictions and housing rights struggles, the closure of the temporary residential complex, relocation to public rental housing, and the gentrification of the area.

Today, Songhak Maeul is long gone. But, as the neighbourhood evolved, so did the community activism, and its legacy remains a reminder of the importance of building resilient neighbourhood communities in the face of growing environmental and social challenges in cities. Revisiting Songhak Maeul shows that building community capacity is not only key to resilient neighbourhoods but also a way to strengthen the resilience of cities.

* The article first appeared on ARIScope, an academic publishing platform of the Asia Research Institute in Singapore, as Songhak Maeul: Community capacity building in marginalised neighbourhoods of Seoul. This is a slightly revised version of the original article.

---

1. See documentaries Haengdang-dong People (1994) and Another World We are Making: Haengdang-dong People 2 (1999). For a good introduction to this important South Korean filmmaker see H.-S. Jung. 2007. Korean film directors: Kim Dong-won. Seoul: Seoul Selection. ↩︎
2. World Bank 2025. Population in largest city – Korea. ↩︎
3. E. Mobrand. 2008. Struggles over Unlicensed Housing in Seoul, 1960–80. Urban Studies 45/2: 367–389. ↩︎
4. S.-K. Ha. 2001. Substandard settlements and joint redevelopment projects in Seoul. Habitat International 25/3, 385–397. ↩︎
5. S. Kim. 2010. Issues of squatters and eviction in Seoul: From the perspectives of the dual roles of the state. City, Culture and Society 1/3: 135–143. ↩︎
6. B.-G. Park. 1998. Where do tigers sleep at night? The state’s role in housing policy in South Korea and Singapore. Economic Geography 74/3: 272–288. ↩︎
7. The Asian Coalition for Housing Rights. 1989. Evictions in Seoul, South Korea. Environment and Urbanization 1/1: 89–94. ↩︎
8. H. B. Shin. 2018. Urban movements and the genealogy of urban rights discourses: The case of urban protesters against redevelopment and displacement in Seoul, South Korea. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 108/2: 356–369. ↩︎
9. Seoul Development Institute. 1994. Thematic maps of Seoul. Seoul: Seoul Development Institute. ↩︎
10. B. Križnik. 2021. Social mobilisation in localities and urban change in South Korea: The evolution of the Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni community movement in Seoul. Asian Studies 9/1: 317–343. ↩︎
11. S.-C. Yang. 1994. Redevelopment district’s low compensations and frequent tenant-union conflicts. Chungang Ilbo: 19 May, 1994. ↩︎
12. M.-R. Cho. 1998. Progressive community movements in Korea: The case of the Hangdang redevelopment area in Seoul. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 2(1), 92–109. ↩︎
13. The name Songhak Maeul expresses the aspirations of its residents to build a resilient community. Songhak refers to pine trees and cranes, symbolising longevity and resilience, while the Korean maeul means a village or small neighbourhood community. ↩︎
14. Hawang 2–1 District Tenants Action Committee. 1995. Together in harmony towards the community. Songhak Maeul: Hawang 2–1 District Tenants Action Committee. ↩︎
15. J. Lee. 1997. Our family has four hundred members, Communal life of 102 evictees’ households in Songhak Maeul, Geumho-dong, Seoul. The Hankyoreh: 2 February, 1997; J. H. Kim. 2017. Unrealised dream, back to community: Seoul, Seongdong. Searching for the origin of neighbourhood community movements: Popular community-making from 1970s to 1990s, 107–159, edited by Publishing Committee for the History of Poor Community Movements. Seoul: Hanul. ↩︎
16. B. Križnik. 2021. Social mobilisation in localities and urban change in South Korea: The evolution of the Geumho-Haengdang-Hawangsimni community movement in Seoul. Asian Studies 9/1: 317–343. ↩︎
17. Nongol Area Publishing Committee. 2019. The time of Hawnag 2–1 District: 20 years of Nongol Credit Union. Seoul: Nongol Credit Union. ↩︎
18. Seoul Development Institute. 2000. Thematic maps of Seoul. Seoul: Seoul Development Institute. ↩︎
19. K.C. Ho. 2019. Neighbourhoods for the City in Pacific Asia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ↩︎
20. B. Križnik, S. Kim. 2022. Re-emerging civic urbanism : The evolving state-civil society relations in community building in Seoul. Emerging civic urbanisms in Asia : Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, and Taipei beyond developmental urbanization, 169–194, edited by I. S. Cho, B. Križnik, J. Hou. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ↩︎
21. C. Folke. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16: 253–267. ↩︎
22. S. Wi. 2015. Case study analysis of the resident movement in Geumho, Haengdang and Hawang Area. Methodology of the new residents organisations, cases and analysis, 47–69, edited by Korea Democracy Foundation. Seoul: Korea Democracy Foundation. ↩︎