| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What city gets your vote to be the capital? |
| Seoul |
|
21% |
[ 12 ] |
| Daejon |
|
41% |
[ 23 ] |
| Pusan |
|
5% |
[ 3 ] |
| Masan |
|
5% |
[ 3 ] |
| Ulsan |
|
5% |
[ 3 ] |
| Kwangju |
|
10% |
[ 6 ] |
| Other |
|
10% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 56 |
|
| Author |
Message |
ryleeys
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, MD
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:47 pm Post subject: New Capital For Korea |
 |
|
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501040119-574958,00.html
| Quote: |
Capital cities are magnets of prosperity to provincial folk across Asia, and Seoul is no exception. The metropolis' population now tops 10 million뾬ne-fifth of the entire population of South Korea뾞nd bureaucrats have pondered vainly for years how to keep Seoul from becoming ever more crowded and expensive. The country's politicians think they have the answer.
When Roh Moo Hyun was vying for the presidency in late 2002, he realized he needed the swing voters of North and South Chungcheong provinces. So he promised to move the country's capital there, some 150 km south of Seoul. At the time, opponents ridiculed him for shameless pork barreling. But Roh won the office, and his shrewdness has proved contagious. With legislative elections coming up in April, lots of lawmakers want to appeal to Chungcheong voters. Shortly after Christmas, the South Korean legislature, with only a handful of dissenters, passed a law stating that the capital would be relocated (along with virtually all government agencies) to a yet-to-be-chosen site near Daejon뾲aking the center of power away from Seoul after 600 years. Construction is set to begin in 2007, finishing by 2030.
The plan has produced plenty of nonelected critics, especially when Roh's initial $5 billion estimate for the move jumped to $38.6 billion in December. They say the relocation of 500,000 people won't unclog Seoul. Landowners in Chungcheong aren't complaining: property prices in Daejon rose faster than any other city's in the first nine months of last year. "It'll be like our version of Washington, D.C.," enthuses Lee Jae Sun, an opposition lawmaker who represents Daejon. What no one denies is that the plan, which still faces major hurdles such as an intended campaign to oppose it by the Seoul metropolitan government, would make South Korea's government quite a bit safer. Seoul, 50 km from the Demilitarized Zone separating South and North Korea뾦s well within range of Kim Jong Il's artillery and only minutes away for jet fighters based at the North's front-line air bases. |
Hmmm... interesting.
Last edited by ryleeys on Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:59 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Pink
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Be cool if they did move the capital. Then Seoul could be the NY of Korea and some other city could be the Washington DC of Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weatherman
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoul is the center of everything in Korea, and I find it hard to beleive that this will go through. Political power in this country is what everybody would love to taste and I big aspect of this power is the power of Seoul. Everything is ranked in this country, and Seoul is always number one. How will Koreans feel when Seoul isn't number one in Polictical power anymore? And will this new city become a bedroom community do to the bullet train stop they will build for it? communting and hour or an hour and onehalf doesn't sound to bad when your family can still live in Seoul and enjoy the benefits of Seoul. Will this city develop a critical mass where it is viberant and lively, and not some planned track of beautiful buildings and landscaped parks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it's a question of moving the assembly building and the bureaucrats and taking the pressure off Seoul, stick em in the center of the country- T/Daejon.
But the best move would be to stick them where nobody ever has to see them- Wando, South Cholla.
I like the idea of those winning public office getting sent to a gulag-like location in the periphery- it might cut down on the amount scum vying for office.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryleeys
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, MD
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think a capital city should have the following criteria:
Room for large government buildings
Natural and landscaped beauty... landscape around the governmental buildings, but have the landscaping augment natural beauty
Center of intellectual learning
Easy access (anyone who's ever driven near DC... oof)
History (and no Seoul isnt' the only place with historical precedence)
Shouldn't be the largest city... I just think the capital shouldn't be distracted by being a massive metropolis. Large is okay, but it shouldn't be the largest.
Anyway, I think Masan would actually be decent... it has some natural beauty from what I've heard and seems a relatively close fit to the rest of my criteria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My city is pretty close to Daejeon, and there are quite a few people betting on the capital being moved. I've noticed a lot of new businesses and development, particuarly in the area where the road to Daejeon is.
I don't know if everything should be moved, but it does seem a little senseless for the Ministry of Defense to be in Seoul, particularly when the Yongsan base is going to be vacated soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FUBAR
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: The Y.C.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ryleeys wrote: |
I think a capital city should have the following criteria:
Room for large government buildings
Natural and landscaped beauty... landscape around the governmental buildings, but have the landscaping augment natural beauty
Center of intellectual learning
Easy access (anyone who's ever driven near DC... oof)
History (and no Seoul isnt' the only place with historical precedence)
Shouldn't be the largest city... I just think the capital shouldn't be distracted by being a massive metropolis. Large is okay, but it shouldn't be the largest.
Anyway, I think Masan would actually be decent... it has some natural beauty from what I've heard and seems a relatively close fit to the rest of my criteria. |
You have too much time on your hands. Go visit Masan and see what it looks like for yourself. Masan is a small town of 450,000 people. It might make sense to move the capital there if it was located somewhere near Seoul, but it isn't. It's located on the Southern coast of the Korea. It really isn't feasible to move the Capital to the opposite side of the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryleeys
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, MD
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Washington DC is similar size and when the capital was moved from Philly, it was like moving it halfway across the country and to a city that didn't even exist on a swampland of an area.
Security benefits too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FUBAR
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: The Y.C.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ryleeys wrote: |
Well, Washington DC is similar size and when the capital was moved from Philly, it was like moving it halfway across the country and to a city that didn't even exist on a swampland of an area.
Security benefits too. |
That was 200 years ago! And now you want to move the Korean Capital to a city right off the coast and closer to its historical enemy.
North Korea might be the threat du jour, but many Koreans would be very leery of moving the Capital on the coast closer to Japan. Also the yearly threat of Typhoon damage would make the move impractical.
Daejon makes alot of sense. Too much sense to be honest. However, political reasons (ie. $$) could easily prevent this from happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryleeys
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, MD
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have a problem with Daejon really... Musan just a preference for me.
But then again, referring to anything other than Seoul would be kinda creepy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Most people think the capital should be moved north if at all. Moving it south would be a way of showing that unification isn't going to happen any time soon. Moving it north would be a goodwill gesture... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted for Los Angeles. Isn't that Korea's 4th largest city Korean population-wise? Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Los Angeles, Daejeon?
Realistically though.. maybe Daejeon would be good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is interesting. They would not be the first country to have a capital in a smaller city. Canada is a good example (Ottawa).
It might make sense to decentralize things as Seoul is the nexus of all activity in Korea. Seoul would remain the economic engine of Korea and the new capital would become the political center. It is at the very least an intriguing prospect.
The move would also mean the capital would be further from the NK border and it could being more prosperity (jobs) to the southern province. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazylemongirl
Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Location: almost there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
In australia's case the built the captial in the middle of nowhere. Sydney and melbourne are great cities despite the absence of the federal pollies.
In new zealand wellington isn't even the second most populous city.
clg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In new zealand wellington isn't even the second most populous city |
But it's the coolest, would Seoul lose some of it's flavour if the capital moved? Probably in terms of how us waeguks experience Seoul nothing much would change. Thusly, I'm not passionate about the topic, would be interesting to see though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
