A PROPOSAL FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EARLY WESTERN ARCHITECTURE IN SEOUL, KOREA by SOHYUN PARK LEE • A THESIS Presented to the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 1990 ii APPROVED: • iii Copyright (C) 1990 Sohyun Park Lee • iv An Abstract of the Thesis of Sohyun Park Lee for the degree of Master of Science in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation to be taken June 1990 Title: A PROPOSAL FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EARLY WESTERN ARCHITECTURE IN SEOUL, KOREA Approved: ' MichaelE~ Early Western architecture generally refers to build- ings shaped by Western influences built during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Korea opened its doors to the West and confronted Western culture for the first time. Compared to traditional Korean architecture, early Western architecture is not yet fully accepted as a part of • Korean culture, partly because of its bad association with the colonial period, 1910-1945. However, this architecture represents characteristics of late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Korean society. To understand the devel- opment of modern Korea, early Western architecture deserves more attention. V This thesis can be regarded as a preliminary proposal for a new national register system which advocates the preservation of early Western buildings in Seoul, Korea. This proposed new national register system is coupled with analysis and suggestions for legislation, administration, implementation, and incentives of the existing register system. The thesis, which focuses on the preservation of early Western buildings, can be directed toward the preservation of other significant cultural properties of the modern era and recent Korean history. The role of the private sector in preservation and structure of preservation education that produces future preservationists should be further inves- tigated . • vi VITA NAME OF AUTHOR: Sohyun Park Lee PLACE OF BIRTH: Seoul, Korea DATE OF BIRTH: April 27, 1961 GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon Yonsei University DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Science, 1990, University of Oregon Master of Engineering, 1986, Yonsei University Bachelor of Engineering, 1984, Yonsei University AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Historic Preservation History of Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture Early Western Architecture of Japan and Korea PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: • Foreign Correspondent, Ggumim (Total Design), Seoul, Korea,, 1989-present Co-editor, ASHP News (Associated Student of Historic Preservation), Eugene, Oregon, 1989-present Swnmer Intern, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem Oregon, 1989 Lecturer, Department of Horne Economics Education, Sang Myung Women's University, Seoul, Korea, 1987 vii Research Assistant, Department of Architectural Engin- eering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, 1986-87 Designer, Architects Group, Kwang Jang (Forum), Seoul, Korea, 1986 AWARDS AND HONORS: Third Ggumim (Total Design) Architectural Criticism Award, Seoul, Korea, 1987 First A&E Criticism Award, Architecture and Environment, Seoul, Korea, 1987 PUBLICATIONS: Park, Sohyun. "The Characteristics of Modern Art Museums and the Critic of Korea's First Art Museum Building, the National Museum of Modern Art, Gwacheon, Kyungi-Do, Korea: An Abstract." GGUMIM (Total Design) 4 (April 1987): 80. (In Korean) Park, Sohyun. "The Application and Modification of Western Theory in Korean Architecture." Architecture and Environment 9 (September 1987): 77- 86. (In Korean) Park, Sohyun. "A Critique on the Chungjoo National Museum." Architecture and Environment 10 (October 1987): 34-57. (In Korean) Park, Sohyun. "On the Form and Shape of Museums in Korea." Architectural Culture 7 (July 1988): 142- • 143. (In Korean) Park, Sohyun, and Jong Suk Song. "A Comparative Study on the Change of Museum Buildings in Western Europe, U.S., Japan, and Korea." Journal of the Architec- tural Institute of Korea (AIK) 6 (October 1986): 39- 42. (In Korean) viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the following people for help in the completion of this thesis. Professor Michael E. Shellenbarger, director of the Historic Preservation Program, my advisor and chairman of this thesis, for his leadership, inspiration and support throughout my graduate program, and for directional guidance. The thesis committee members, Dr. Leland M. Roth, Professor of Art History, for his encouragement, guidance, and tenacity; and Mr. Eric Eiseman, Executive Director of the Historic Preservation League of Oregon, for his support and commitment to the professional standards. Professor Chung-dong Kim, editor of Ggumim, for his support and information in the development of the thesis; and my former advisors at Yonsei University for their • encouragement of my study in the United States. Carol Roth, for her standards of excellence as an editor. All of my fellow students in the Historic Preservation Program, especially Jill Macdonald, for their warm hospital- ity and friendship. ix Finally, a special thanks to my family: my parents- in-law, for their enlightened understanding and support of their daughter-in-law's career; and my parents, for their constant encouragement, prayers, and love . • X DEDICATION To Dongman • xi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ...... . 1 II. EARLY WESTERN ARCHITECTURE IN SEOUL, KOREA 7 Historical Background ..... . 7 Building Types and Styles ... . 10 Meanings of Early Western Architecture in Korean History ........ . 26 Current Preservation Status of Early Western Buildings ........ . 30 III. CURRENT NATIONAL REGISTER SYSTEM IN SEOUL, KOREA, AND EARLY WESTERN ARCHITECTURE . . . 34 Legislation .......... . 34 Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Implementation . . . . . . • . . 47 Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE KOREAN NATIONAL REGISTER SYSTEM TO PRESERVE EARLY WESTERN ARCHITECTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Overview . . . . • . . • 51 Legislation .•.. 54 Administration. 64 Implementation. 70 • Incentives ......•. 75 V. CONCLUSION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 APPENDIX RESULTS OF "A BASIC STUDY OF DEVELOPING INVENTORY AND EVALUATION FORM FOR MODERN BUILDINGS IN SEOUL, KOREA" 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 xii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Old Kyung-gi Province Hall, Takjibu (Old Central Government Architectural Office), 1909-1910 .... . .... . 2 2. Jeil Bank, Jeil Branch, Hirahayshi Kingo, Architect (Japanese), Neo-classic Style, 1933-1935 ........ . 3 3. Whashin Department Store, Kil-yong Park, Architect (Korean), 1935-1937 ..... 4 4. Kwang-tong Kwan, Sato Kumamoto, Architect (Japanese), 1908-1909 ... . .... . 15 5. Myung-dong Cathedral, Father Coste, Designer (France), 1892-1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Seoul Anglican Cathedral, Arthur Dixson, Architect (English), 1922-1926 ... 17 7. Sukjogeon (Stone Pavilion) in the Duksu Palace, G. R. Harding (English), 1900-1909 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Old Chosun Exhibition Hall, Kyungbok Palace, 1914-1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 • 9. Old Myungdong National Theater, Tamada Architectural Design Company (Japanese Firm), 1935-1936 ..... 20 10. Kukdo Theater, Tamada Architectural Design Company (Japanese Firm), 1935-1936 . . . 21 11. Shinsegae Department Store, Hayashi Yukihei, Architect (Japanese), 1929-1930 . . . . . . . 22 12. Seoul City Hall, Iwai Chozaburo, Sasa Keiich, and Iwaisuki Yoshiyuki, Architects (Japanese), 1924-1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 xiii 13. Ewha Women's University Main Hall, William Merrel Vories, designer (American, Later Naturalized As a Japanese Citizen and Changed His Name to Hidotsu Yanaki Mereru), 1933-1935 ........ . 24 14. Old Government General Building, George de Lalande and Nomura Ichiro, Architects, 1916-1926 ............... . 25 • xiv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. New Building Types of Early Western Architecture in Seoul, Korea 12 2. A Style List of Early Western Buildings in Seoul, Korea ........... . 27 3. The Preservation Status of Early Western Buildings in Seoul, Korea ...... . 32 4. The Cultural Property Act of 1962 36 5. The Traditional Building Preservation Act of 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6. The Organizational Chart of the Cultural Assets Management Bureau in the Korean Ministry of Culture ..... . 45 7. The Organizational Chart of the U.S. National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 • 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During my present two-year visit to the United States, I have received copies of several articles that document the recent demolition of three early Western buildings in Seoul, Korea.1 Among them was the Kyung-gi Province Hall built in 1909, an early Western-style public buildings and a fine example of Renaissance revival style in Korea (fig. 1). Another building recently demolished was the Jeil Bank, Jeil Branch, built in 1935 and patterned after the Nee-classic style (fig. 2). Finally, the first department store designed by Korean architects, the Whashin Department Store, built in 1937, has also been demolished. Some architectural historians regard this Sullivanesque style building as a starting point of Korean modernist architecture (fig. 3). • Despite the significance of these three buildings in Korean history and architecture of the early twentieth century, none are listed in the National Register of Cultural Properties in Korea. 1Early Western architecture generally refers to build- ings shaped by Western influences built during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Korea opened its doors to the West and confronted Western culture for the first time. 2 • Fig. 1. Old Kyung-gi Province Hall, Takjibu (Old Central Government Architectural Office), 1909-1910. This was one of the earliest Western Style government buildings in Korea. The originally symmetrical building was cut in half during the Korean War, 1950-1953, as shown in the 1969 photo. Before being demolished in 1989, it was used as an annex building of the Seoul city police department. Source: Chung-dong Kim, A Study on the Modern Architecture of Seoul. 3 • Fig. 2. Jeil Bank, Jeil branch, Hirahayshi Kingo, Architect (Japanese), Nee-classic Style, 1933-1935. According to the Seoul Weekly MaeKyung, August 27, 1987, the design was sel- ected from among 269 entries of the first design competition in Korea. The Seoul Kyung-hyang Daily News of July 31, 1987, reported that the Jeil bank decided to demolish the building and build a new high rise department store. Archi- tectural historians opposed the demolition and tried to nominate the building to the national register, but failed. The building is going to be demolished in 1990. Source: Author's collection. 4 • Fig. 3. Whashin Department Store, Kil-yang Park, Architect (Korean), 1935-1937. This was the first department store designed by a Korean architect. Kil-yang Park is regarded as one of the first and best Korean modern architects in Korea. The Whashin was demolished in 1987 to build a con- temporary office building. A project to retain the facade of the old Whashin was proposed, as shown above in 3b. Source: Konggan (Space) (a Korean architecture and art magazine) January/February, 1986, no. 223): 109. 5 More than 126 countries have established their own national register systems to protect and manage the heritage of their nations.2 In the United States, the national register is used in four ways: (a) as a planning tool in deciding what is worth keeping; (b) as the basis for tax incentives; (c) as a research tool for the nation's central archives of historic places; and (d) as a distinction con- ferred upon significant properties.3 Korea, like other countries, has legally established National Register systems to preserve and manage its cul- tural resources, including historic buildings. The Cultural Property Protection Act of 1962 was a major effort in this direction. The inclusion of historic buildings in the Korean national register is a honorific distinction and a fundamental step toward protection. Among significant historic buildings in Korea, tradi- tional Korean architecture has been the focus of attention for preservation. This includes old Korean palaces, • temples, and monumental structures, which constitute almost 2The number of countries is counted from The Directory of Historic Preservation Organization Outside of the United States, compiled by the Education Service Division Office of Preservation Service, The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1978). 3Parts of Thomas F. King's article, "Is There a Future for the National Register?" are quoted in Pamela Thurber, ed., Preservation Policy Research (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1985), 68. 6 all the National Register list of Korean cultural property. Until the passage of the 1984 Traditional Building Preserva- tion Act, vernacular buildings, such as traditional folk houses, barns, and various local structures, received little attention, compared to the high style traditional palaces, temples, and upper class residences. This neglect is even more pronounced in the case of Early Western architecture in Korea. In this thesis, the preservation of historic buildings of Early Western style in Seoul, Korea, under the National Register system will be analyzed. First, Early Western buildings in Seoul will be reviewed briefly for their preservation status. Second, the Korean National Register system will be examined, taking into account legislation, administration, implementation, and incentives. I will then analyze the system, with preservation of Early Western arch- itecture as the focal point. Finally, I will make sugges- tions to improve the National Register system, drawing upon • examples from the American experience . 7 CHAPTER II EARLY WESTERN ARCHITECTURE IN SEOUL, KOREA Historical Background Until 1876, Korea persisted with an exclusionist policy to avoid Western i~fluences, believing it to be the best way to manage the nation. Historical forces in the Far East, however, deemed otherwise. After the Opium War, China was forced to sign a treaty with Britain in 1842. As a result, China ceded Hong Kong to Britain, opened five ports for for- eign trade, and regularized the presence of Europeans in China. Japan, seeking to avoid the Chinese failure, con- cluded pacts with the Netherlands in 1857, with the United States in 1858, and then with other European countries. • Japan quickly accepted Western influences, and Korea could no longer remain closed. Forced to withdraw its policy of exclusion, Korea admitted the Western world. Korea first made a treaty with Japan in 1876. Then Korea signed successive treaties with the United States, France, Germany, Russia, Britain, and Belgium in the 1880s. European nations sought in Korea, as well as in other East Asian nations, new sources of raw materials as well as 8 markets for selling finished products. Since the 1880s, Western material culture has poured through the opened ports of Korea. While the traditional lifestyle persisted outside the capital and major ports, an exotic foreign environment began to take shape within a relatively short period of time. Architecture, as well as dress, food, and small gad- gets, were among the most visible parts of this process. In Korea, the new architecture of this period is gener- ally known as "modern architecture," since it was introduced as Korea entered its modern history. The term "foreign style architecture" is also broadly used, because it can be contrasted with the traditional Korean style. The modern architecture of Korea, therefore, refers to the architecture of the modern period in Korea. The term "modern" used here, corresponds to a time period in Korea, roughly from 1880s to 1940s, not to a particular style. "Modern architecture" in Far Eastern countries must not be confused with "modernism" or the "modern movements" of the early twentieth century in • Europe and the United States. The term "early Western arch- itecture" is also generally accepted as referring to the new buildings of this period in Korea, and this term will also be used in this thesis. The early Western architecture of Korea was a version of late nineteenth and early twentieth-century European and American practices, including various classical revivals, 9 eclecticism, and other expressions. It was, however, adapted to the Korean environment and influenced by climate, materials, and technologies available at that time. The appearance of early Western architecture in Korea altered the townscape of Seoul and other major cities. Seoul, the capital of Korea since 1392, has a long history. From the Chosun Dynasty to the modern Republic of Korea, Seoul has passed through several configurations. Although it maintains the characteristics of a traditional Korean capital, with its palaces and crowded market places, Seoul responds to political and economic changes more quickly than any other city in Korea. On concluding the treaties with European countries and the United States in the 1880s, consulates, churches, and commercial establishments of Western styles were constructed in the traditional capital city. In 1910, Korea was demoted from a monarchy to a colony of Japan, and many government and commercial buildings were built in downtown Seoul under • Japanese patronage. The traditional wooden structures and new Western-style buildings contrast sharply, reflecting the dual value systems of that period. Following World War II, the historic buildings of Seoul were threatened. After Korea became independent in 1945, the Korean War broke out in 1950. Many significant historic buildings, including those of early Western architecture 10 style, were destroyed during the Korean War. In the 1960s and 1970s, Korea carried out far-reaching economic policies, and, although this economic policy was successful, it re- shaped Seoul greatly. The Chosun Dynasty's monarchial past was still preserved in palaces, monuments, and tombs, but the forces of economic development neglected the early Western architecture. 1 Intensive urbanization resulted in the demolition of many historic Western buildings in Seoul. Now in a city of ten million people, traces of early Western architecture have become less visible. Building Types and Styles The tremendous changes from a Confucian monarchy to a modern republic brought an enormous transformation to Korean society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen- turies. Modernization at that time meant Westernization, and Western material culture became a model to follow as quickly as possible. New foreign building types played a significant role in reflecting the altered environment of Seoul, beginning with foreign communities and followed by legations, churches, and commercial establishments that began to dominate the downtown area. 1Although traditional Korean architecture was also threatened and destroyed when compared to Early Western architecture, it was not as neglected. 11 The new building types built during this period were not based on styles inherited from traditional Korean archi- tecture. Buildings included those for the new government, education, religion, commerce, entertainment, diplomacy, and medicine. In 1987, a preliminary report was written about late nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings in Seoul, Korea; 109 buildings were surveyed by Chung-dong K . 2 l.In. Based on these buildings in Seoul, the list of new building types is shown in table 1. These modern buildings served functions new to Korea; from consulates to movie theaters, they reflected the dy- namic transformations occurring in Seoul from the 1880s to the 1940s. To the Koreans of that period, whose architec- tural tastes had been confined to traditional wooden struc- tures, these new building types must have been objects of wonder, awe, or anxiety. It is written in the "600 Year History of Seoul" that when the Kwang-tong Kwan, one of the oldest banks in Korea, was completed in 1909, the Korean • people were astonished by the building's height and form 2chung-dong Kim, "A Study on the Modern Architecture of Seoul," The Journal of Korean Institute of Registered Archi- tects, nos. 218-239 (May 1987-February 1989); this is a series of articles. 12 Table 1. New Building Types of Early Western Architecture in Seoul, Korea Theme/ Building Type One Example (Style)* Designer (Nation)** Year ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chosun Dynasty palace Sukjogeon NeoClasslc G. Harding (UK) 1909 Commercial office Chongro BLDG Sulllvanesque Park, Kll-yong (K) 1931 hotel Chosun Hotel Eclectic G. de Lalande(G?) 1913 bank Hankool< Bank Renaissance Tastuno Klngo (J) 1907 stock M. DaeHan S. M. Baroque Alzawa Keljl(J) 1921 dept. Store Shlnsegye Half modern Hayashi Yuklhel(J) 1929 Communication post office Kyungsung P.O. Baroque ? 1913 news paper Dong-A llbo.C. Half Modern Yokozawa- & Nakamura(J) 1925 radio station Education high school PaeJae High S. American colonial T. Yoshizawa (J) 1887 college professional- school Engineering S. Neoclassic Fujiwara Kumamoto(J) 1908 university Yonsel- Underwood Hall Tudor H.K. Murphy(US) 1921 Fine/Applied- Arts museum National Folk M. Korean- traditional revival Yano Kaname(J) 1937 Foreign- Diplomacy consulate British Consulate Romanesque T.J. Waters? (UK) 1890 consul's- residence U.S. ambassador's K. traditional revival ? 1883 Law court house Supreme C. Romanesque lwal & Sasa Keilchl(J) 1927 Local govern't city hall Saoul City H. Eclectic lwal, Sasa,- & Yoshlyukl(J) 1924 police office fire department 13 Table 1--continued. Theme/ Bulldlng Type One Example ( Style ) Designer ( Nation ).. Year Medicine hospital DaeHan H. Baroque (J) 1908 drugstore Mllltary armory Bunsa-Chang K. Traditional revival. Kim Myung-gyun?(K) 1883 Monument gate(Arch) Independence Gate Sabatln (R) 1896 National govn't cabinet Old Government- General B. Classic R. Lalande(UK) + Nomura(J)1915 Performing Arts theater Old Myungdong National Theater Sulllvanesque Tamada Flrm(J) 1935 Politics congress party office Provincial govn't provincial Kyunggl P. Hall Renaissance Takjlbu(K) 1909 Recreation Indoor court movie Dansung-Sa International Tamada Flrm(J) 1934 Religion church MyungOong- Cathedral Gothic Father J. Coste(F) 1982 meeting hall Chundo- Religion M. Hall Exotic Nakamura (J) 1918 monastery rectory Salvation Army- Main Office Eclectic ? 1926 Residence Private Kim's Residence F.L.W. type Park, Kll-yung(K) 1929 Science green- Changkyung palace- house Green house Victorian Katayama Tokuma(J) 1902 Transportation railway- Seoul R.R.- station Depot Baroque Tsumamoto Yasushl(J) 1922 • -·-----·----• Currently existing buildings are considered. The oldest one or significant one Is selected as each example. **Country Abbreviation (F) France (G) Germany (J) Japan (K) Korea (R) Russia (UK) England (US) The United States 14 (fig. 4) . 3 New material such as stone, brick, iron, and glass certainly contributed to the exotic atmosphere, but these buildings were characterized primarily by their dis- tinctive styles. Not all of these buildings were fine examples of each style. Although some were elaborately designed and crafted, many were simplified structures with a modicum of correct details. The best were designed by architects or profes- sional engineers. More commonly, they were built by mer- chants, missionaries, or Catholic priests (see figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). Korean architects, educated in Westernized schools in Korea, started to appear as professionals in the late 1920s, although the status of Korea as a colony of Japan from 1910 to 1945 kept Korean architects from practicing independent- ly. It also prohibited the direct acceptance of Western technologies that were instead channeled through Japan. Most of the better examples of modern architecture in Seoul • were designed by architects of Japan, China, the United States, or the governmental architects of Western European countries. These architects were not necessarily the lead- ing architects of the period in their home countries, and 3Matsumoto Shigei, volume 3 of 600 Year History of Seoul; cited in Chung-dong Kirn, "A Study on the Modern Architecture of Seoul," The Journal of Korean Institute of Registered Architects 223 (October, 1987): 33. 15 .r ,,, . . ~ .,,, , , ~.' • . 1), Fig. 4. Kwang-tong Kwan, Sato Kumamoto, Architect (Japanese), 1908-1909. Originally the old Daehan Bank, it is currently the Korean Commercial Bank, Namdaemoon-ro branch. It is classical in style, but stylized. Source: Author's collection. 16 • Fig. 5. Myung-dong Cathedral, Father Coste, Designer (France), 1892-1986. This Roman Catholic Church was regis- tered as a "Historic Relic" in 1976. Father Coste found it difficult to construct this Gothic brick church, because in the 1890s no Korean builders knew Western structures nor Western-style brick. According to Hong-ryul Yu, A History of the Korean Roman Catholic Church, Heung-min Kim learned how to fire Western brick and tried it at the Yong-san traditional brick kiln. Source: Author's collection. 17 • Fig. 6. Seoul Anglican Cathedral, Arthur Dixson, Architect (English), 1922-1926. This Romanesque church was registered as a "Significant Tangible Cultural Property of the City of Seoul" in 1978. It is made of brick and Korean granite. Source: Author's collection. 18 • Fig. 7. Sukjogeon (Stone Pavilion) in the Duksu Palace, G. R. Harding (English), 1900-1909. This neo-classic build- ing was designed as a residence of the last king of the Chosun Dynasty. Currently used as a national art museum, it was registered as a "Historic Relic " in 1963. Source: Author's collection. 19 • Fig. 8. Old Chosun Exhibition Hall, Kyungbok Palace, 1914- 1915. This building is strongly influenced by Beaux-Arts Classicism. It was built to commemorate the first five years of Japanese rule in Korea, a circumstance which has kept the building from nomination to the national register. The building was once used as the Korean Academy of Science, but currently it is an office of the Cultural Assets Manage- ment Bureau. Some historians insist the building should be demolished to maintain the integrity of the Kyungbok Palace. Source: Author's collection. 20 • Fig. 9. Old Myungdong National Theater, Tamada Architec- tural Design Company (Japanese Firm), 1935-1936. This Sul- livanesque theater played an important role in the history of the modern performing arts in Korea. Currently used as a commercial office, it was heavily restored in 1961. If it is threatened by future development plans, it has no legal protection. There is little hope that such comparatively young historic buildings might be listed in the existing national register system. Source: Author's Collection. 21 • Fig. 10. Kukdo Theater, Tamada Architectural Design Company (Japanese Firm), 1935-1936. This theater incorporates some classical elements, although the entablature supports a bracketed, upturned traditional roof. Source: Author's collection. 22 ·-~-·--.... - • Fig. 11. Shinsegae Department Store, Hayashi Yukihei, Arch- itect (Japanese), 1929-1930. This was the first Western style-department store in Korea. Source: Author's collec- tion. 23 I I Fig. 12. Seoul City Hall, Iwai Chozaburo, Sasa Keiich, and Iwaisuki Yoshiyuki, Architects (Japanese), 1924-1926. This Western-style building has greater historical than architec- tural significance. The moving of the city hall to another location is currently being discussed. Discussions are currently being held to determine whether the building will be demolished or moved and restored, possibly for use as a museum. Source: Author's collection. 24 • Fig. 13. Ewha Women's University Main Hall, William Merrel Vories, designer (American, later naturalized as a Japanese citizen and changed his name to Hidotsu Yanaki Mereru), 1933-1935. The hall is patterned after the Tudor style. Vories played a role in developing Japanese and Korean modern architecture. Source: Author's collection. 25 ,. ~ -;' ... :.;.:~ ~-~y- .. ,. ':' • Fig. 14. Old Government General Building, George de Lalande and Nomura Ichiro, Architects, 1916-1926. This building, currently the National Central Museum, has symbolic meaning in the history of preservation of early Western buildings. Despite public suggestions to demolish this building, since it was built to house the Japanese colonial government, it has been restored as a national museum. Source: Kunchuck kwa Hwankyunq (Architecture and Environment, an architec- tural magazine in Korea) 27 (November, 1986): 3. 26 their ways of practicing contemporary Western architecture varied from similar styles in Europe. European architecture of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was disseminated differently to each region of the world. Not only were architectural developments different in England, France, Germany, and other European countries during the period, but the nineteenth-century European architecture was transplanted differently in the European colonies. For example, what the British, Dutch, and Danes brought to India 1750-1850 was different from what was being built along the eastern seaboard of the United States in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Far East versions of European architecture were also varied. With all of the variations, it is difficult to name exact styles of early Western buildings in Seoul. A brief list of styles and architects of the early Western buildings in Seoul, based on historic Western buildings in Seoul men- tioned above, is shown in table 2 . • Meanings of Early Western Architecture in Korean History In Korean history, the late nineteenth and early twen- tieth century is regarded as a shameful period to the Korean people. In that transitional era, Korean society failed to reshape· itself into a powerful modern entity. Consequently, Korea, the country that had boasted its independent history 27 Table 2. A Style List of Early Western Buildings in Seoul, Korea source style example(functlon) _a rchitect( nation)** built year ......................................... ...... -----·•·---···--------- Korean- tradltlonal revival Bunsacgang (armory) M.K.Klm(K)? 1883 traditional- U.S. Ambassador's (residence) ? 1883 architecture Woojungkuk (post office)? 1884 Kwanghyewon(hospital) ? 1885 Classic american colonial Paejae (high school)* T. Yoshizawa(J) 1887 baroque Woonhyun (palace) T. Katayama(J) 1907 neo-classlc Sukjogeon (palace) G. Harding(UK) 1909 classic revival renaissance revival Korea-U.S.electric co.* ?(US) 1900 2nd empire Kwangtong-kwan(bank) Takjlbu(K) 1908 Medieval gothic Myungdong cathedral Fr. Coste(F) 1892 jacobethan romanesque Seoul Anglican church A. Dixon(UK) 1926 tudor Yonsei univ. main hall H.K. Mutphy(US) 1925 20th- art deco century sullivanesque Old Myungdong- National theater Tamada Firm(J) 1936 half modern/transitional international Dansung theater Tamada Firm(J) 1935 Others egyptian moslem exotic Chundo rellgion- meeting hall Nakamura(J) 1921 unknown • demolished ••nation key (F) France (K)Korea (J) Japan (R) Russia (UK) England (US) the United States *** '?" referes to unkown architects. 28 of almost five thousand years, became a colony of Japan. As a colony during 1910 to 1945, Korea could not keep up with Western development. Besides the loss of pride, the country still struggled between rigid traditional values and indi- gestible foreign ones. The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were, • however, a significant period in Korean history. During this revolutionary transitional time that connected old Korea to the modern republic, Korea experienced Western civilization for the first time. To understand the devel- opment of modern Korea, this time period deserves careful diagnosis. From the 1880s to the 1940s, early Western architec- ture of Seoul represented a Korean society in turbulent disorder. It was at first an awkward transplantation of Western architecture within the traditional Korean context which gradually evolved into a more Korean-like version. The structures are not all excellent examples of each style; • within the limits of available materials, technologies, and craftsmanship, most were vernacular versions of contemporary European architecture. Humble as these buildings were, they represented Korea's best response to Western architecture. Early Western architecture in Seoul became the starting point of modern architecture in Korea. 29 When the past is proud and triumphant, people want to commemorate and preserve artifacts and structures belonging to that brilliant period; when the past evokes shame or pain, it hurts to look back. To older Koreans, the Early Western buildings bring back bad memories of the past. Some radical groups insist on demolishing colonial government buildings. Given these attitudes, compared to traditional Korean architecture, Early Western buildings in Seoul have been neglected. The year 1986 marked a symbolic event in the preser- vation of historic Early Western buildings in Seoul. The Government General Building, completed in 1926, was reno- vated into the National Central Museum (fig. 14). There had been a long dispute whether to demolish or to renovate the structure, and although this building reminds some Koreans of a painful history and breaks up the visual integrity of the traditional Kyung-Bok Palace behind it, the decision was made to preserve it as it was. This event brings a new per- • spective in preservation of Early Western buildings. The previous emotional attitudes toward the Early Western archi- tecture appear to be slowly changing. While apparently significant examples of Early Western buildings in Seoul have begun to receive attention, ordinary historic buildings of that period still await protection. Surprisingly, there is no official inventory of Early 30 western buildings in Seoul. 4 A city of ten million people, Seoul changes daily. Without a public preservation effort, the old historic buildings will be unable to withstand the speed of urban renewal and expansion in Seoul. Before it is too late, therefore, basic preservation efforts for Early Western buildings are required. 5 Current Preservation Status of Early Western Buildings In the Korean National Register system of cultural pro- perty, there are several hierarchical levels for significant historic buildings: The Treasure ( !f. ~ ) or The National Treasure ( -.;;i-~ ) ; The Historic Relic ( -'·l-~ ) ; The Signifi- cant Folk Resource *~ '(..!::; .:>.J-~ ) • On the other hand, at the municipal level, The Significant Tangible Cultural Property of Seoul ( _... l ¾ _... 1* ~ * ~~ ~ ~ ;,.H ) and The Folk Resource of Seoul ( ..,_~¾..,.l*~-':::'~.:>.H.:>.J-~ ) are available. Criteria for nomination and legal status are discussed in detail in Chapter III . • 4As an independent research project in the Historic Preservation Program of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts at the University of Oregon, I developed an inventory and evaluation form for modern architecture in Seoul, Korea. The result is shown in Appendix A. I believe an official inventory is a fundamental step in preservation planning for historic buildings. 5such efforts would include a thorough inventory in Seoul, then National Register nominations. 31 According to the recent report on the cultural property of Seoul, there are 527 nationally registered properties and 106 municipally registered properties in Seoul. 6 Among them, only twenty-three Early Western buildings in Seoul are listed: twenty are registered as Historic Relics and three are registered as Significant Tangible Cultural Property of Seoul. No Early Western building is listed as a Treasure. In 1987, a report concerning Early Western buildings in Seoul was published. 7 A brief summery extracted from the report about the current preservation status is shown in table 3. Among the 109 buildings reported, 58 have survived and still exist. Of those 58 surviving buildings, 45 are comparatively intact, nine are in poor condition, and four have been relocated. It is uncertain whether any of the 51 demolished buildings were documented before demolition. 6The City of Seoul, The Cultural Property Status in • Seoul (The City of Seoul, December 31, 1989). Among 527 nationally registered properties, 109 are national treas- ures, 272 are treasures, 54 are historic relics, 12 are natural monuments, 35 are significant intangible cultural properties, and 45 are significant folk resources. On the other hand, among 106 municipally registered properties, 69 are significant tangible cultural properties, 3 are signifi- cant intangible cultural properties, 7 are monuments and 27 are significant folk resources of the city of Seoul. 7chung-Dong Kim, "Problems of Resistance and Acceptance in Modern Korean Architecture," Total Design, GGUMIM 67 (August, 1987), 50-55; published in Seoul, Korea. 32 Table 3. The Preservation Status of Early Western Buildings in Seoul, Korea (Among 109 Buildings Reported) Status Examples Building Type Style Archltect(N)**Year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58 existing ( 45 comparatively Intact, 13 lost Integrity or relocated) 20 registered as Historic Relics Independence Gate memorial arch Sabatine (A) 1896 Sukjogeon palace neoclassic Harding (UK) 1900 the first post office communication half tradlt 'nal ? 1884 Daehan Hospital M. Hall madlclne baroque (J) 1908 Yakhyun Catholic Church religion gothlc Fr. Coste(F) 1892 Russian Cunsulate diplomacy renaissance Sabatlne(R) 1885 Belgium Consulate diplomacy C. revival (J) 1905 Wonhyoro Catholic Ch. religion gothlc ? 1899 Jungdong Methodist Ch. religion gothlc Yosljlwa(J) 1895 Woonhyun Palace palace baroque (J) 1907 Myungdong Catholic Ch. religion gothlc Fr. Coste(F) 1892 Yonsel Univ. 3 Halls educations tudor ? 1919-21 Old Kyungsung Univ. education half modern K.Y. Park(K) 1931 The Engineering School education baroque (J) 1907 Korean Nat'I Bank HQ commercial baroque D. Klnko(J) 1907 Jung-ang High Sch. 3 Halls education tudor D.J. Park(K) 1931 The Seoul Station transportation baroque (J) 1925 Koryu Univ. 2 Halls education tudor D.J.Park(K)1933-5 3 registered as Significant Tangible Cultural Property of Seoul Anglican Ch. of Seoul religion romanesque Dlxson(UK) 1922 Chundo Religion Main Hall religion exotic Nakamura(J) 1921 Bunsachang, the Armory military Korean- M.G. Kim(K) 1883 traditional revival 51 DemoHshed It Is uncertain that documentation has been made for the demolished buildings. • * •7• referes to unknown architects ** nation key (F) France (K) Korea (J) Japan (R) Russia (UK) England (US) the United States 33 Results show that Early Western buildings in Seoul have not been properly preserved. Some are more than a hundred years old, and most are over 50. Given their historic significance, although associated with painful rather than triumphant memories, Early Western buildings merit a second look . • 34 CHAPTER III CURRENT NATIONAL REGISTER SYSTEM IN SEOUL, KOREA, AND EARLY WESTERN ARCHITECTURE Legislation Some of the concepts behind the preservation of nation- ally significant buildings can be traced to the records of the nations of Kokuruy, Baekje, and Silla, which made up ancient Korea during the period 60 B.C. to 600 A.O. These records contain regulations designed to protect and restore Buddhist temples. 1 Modern legal systems for preserving cultural properties, however, have their origins in the early twentieth century. In 1933, during Japanese rule, an act protecting old Korea's treasures, relics, scenic spots, and natural monu- ). Fol- lowing the passage of this act, a survey and inventory of old Korea's cultural resources was conducted. The current legal system for preserving cultural pro- perties is guided by the Cultural Property Protection Act of 1Kyung-ho Chang, "Cultural Property Preservation and the Efforts of Preserving Traditional Buildings As a Dis- trict," Architecture and Environment 57 (May 1988): 72-75. 35 1962 ( z-~;,.~ .5'..1 ~ ) • 2 Amended several times, this Act plays a major role in preserving cultural resources, in- cluding historic buildings. The Traditional Building Pres- ervation Act was legislated in 1984 ( ~ ~ ~ ~-i-~ ~ ~ ) • 3 While the grand traditional buildings were protected under the 1962 Act, buildings evaluated as less significant but worth protection were considered in the 1984 Act. The Korean legal system, as it relates to the preservation of historic buildings, is summarized in tables 4 and 5. The 1962 Act In Korea, cultural properties are defined under the 1962 Act by the following four categories: tangible cul- t~ral property, intangible cultural property, monuments, and folk resources (table 4). Tangible cultural property includes, for example, buildings, old records, books, paint- ings, and sculptures with historic and artistic value. Intangible cultural property includes plays, music, dance, and craftsmanship, which are viewed as intangible but have significant value. Monuments include relics of prehistoric mounds, sites of forts, and palaces with historic and aca- demic value. Rare animals, plants, minerals, and caves, 2The 1962 Act will be used to refer to the Cultural Property Protection Act of 1962 throughout this thesis. 3The 1984 Act will be used to refer to the Traditional Building Preservation Act of 1984 throughout this thesis. 36 Table 4. The Cultural Property Act of 1962 Definition of Natlonal\Munlclpal Crltelra for Cultural Property Register System(bulldlngs) Inclusion ---- -----······························································-·······················-·· Tangible Cufturaf Property something tangible: Treasure traditional wooden or (buildings, masonry structure of hlsto- sculptures, rlc \artlstic\academlc value paintings, old books, National Treasure exceptional Treasure • etc) Significant- less significant than Tangible Cultural of Treasure the City of Seoul Intangible Cultural property something Intangible: (music, dance, play, craftsmanship, etc) Monuments Something commemorable: Historic Relic relics In theme of pre- (pre-historic sites, hlstorlc\rltual\rellglon\po- relics, lltics\milltary\lndustry\ rare anlmals/ plants, transportation\ education, and their habitat, of academic value etc) folk Resources something related to folk culture: Slgnlflcant- resources representing (clothes, Folk Resource typical Korean folk lives food, dwellings, Significant- less significant than productions, Folk Resource of Significant Folk- social lives, the City of Seoul Resource etc) 37 along with their dwellings or growing sites, are also con- sidered natural monuments. Finally, folk resources include manners and customs regarding clothes, foods, dwellings, religions, and annual events that are integral aspects of the traditional Korean life style. Under these definitions, a building can be defined as a tangible cultural property, a monument, or a folk resource, according to the building's character. Although it might appear to be complicated, these hierarchial definitions worked well with traditional Korean buildings. For example, a king's palace would be defined as a tangible cultural pro- perty, while the dwellings of ordinary people would be defined as folk resources. When these definitions are applied to buildings of the modern era, however, it is difficult to make them fit. The above categories limit the National Register status for buildings. The current National Register system further provides four status categories for historic buildings: treasures, national treasures, historic relics, and sig- nificant folk resources (table 4). Treasures or national treasures are among the tangible cultural properties; the latter possess higher status. To be nominated as a treasure, an object must be: (a) a tradi- tional wooden structure, such as a tower, palace, gate, temple, lecture hall, or residence; (b) a traditional stone 38 structure, such as a cave, tower, lantern, bridge, or stair; or (c) a traditional tomb or structure related to tombs. In each case, the object must have historic, academic, artis- tic, or technological value. Among treasures, a national treasure is deemed to be of exceptional value. To be eligible for consideration as a national treasure, a treasure must: (a) possess significant historic, academic, or artistic meaning; (b) be ancient and be representative of its period; (c) show excellent design, craftsmanship, and rarity; (d) be an example of a unique style, material, quality, or function; or (e) be associated with a significant person or his work. From this interpretation, it may appear that only tra- ditional buildings are eligible as treasures. Since the criteria are concerned primarily with traditional Korean buildings, an Early Western building cannot be nominated as a treasure, even if it is a tangible cultural property with significant value. The preservation of Early Western buildings is included in these Acts under "historic relics." A monument can be nominated as a Historic Relic when it meets one of six cri- teria related to the themes of pre-historic, sacrificial rite or religion, politics or military, industry or trans- portation, education, or graves. Because these themes all have academic value, there should be room for Early Western 39 buildings. To date, 20 Early Western buildings, identified in table 3, have been registered as historic relics. The functional characteristics of historic relics sug- gest that ten educational buildings, four churches, two consulates, and two Western-style palaces could be nominated as historic relics. Others which could be included are Independence Gate, a post office, a hospital, a railway sta- tion, and a bank. It is of interest that these structures are not only the finest examples of Early Western style in Seoul, but that they are also unrelated to the colonial government. If politics and industry are considered as criteria, the three Early Western buildings mentioned in the Introduction of this thesis could also have been nominated as historic relics (figs. 1, 2, 3). Nevertheless, none are now considered historic relics; they are slated to be demol- ished, and there are many other Early Western buildings likely to encounter the same fate. The question is, why are these Early Western buildings not nominated? The criteria for being a significant folk resource are related to Korean folk culture. These criteria cover almost all aspects of traditional Korean society, ranging from national rituals to ordinary peoples' daily lives, seasonal events, and so on. The 1962 Act classified folk resources as clothes, food, dwellings, production, transportation, market, social life, religion, science, and entertainment. 40 If a resource represents a typical characteristic of one of the above categories, it can be nominated as a significant folk resource. In addition, a significant folk resource can be identified when a collection of resources contains one of the following characteristics: (a) historical changes; (b) regional or periodical characteristics; or (c) lives of a certain class. A district can also be nominated as a significant folk resource, limited by the following criteria: (a) where tra- ditional Korean life styles are preserved; (b) where scenic characteristics of folk events are preserved; (c) where folk houses provide significant resources for researching the history of Korean architecture; (d) where traditional aspects of Korean rural life are preserved; (e) where asso- ciations with old legends or myths exit; or (f) where the ruins of old castles or sites are preserved and provide scenic views. These criteria allow room for Early Western buildings as significant folk resources. Since it is stated that the significant folk resources represent characteristics of lifestyles in a certain period, Early Western buildings during the period of the 1880s to the 1940s would be strong candidates. Based on the criteria of significant folk resources, Early Western buildings are resources represent- ing the beginning of the modern era in Korea. However, none 41 of the Early Western buildings are nominated to this list, primarily because of the interpretation of the term "folk," which limits the classification to occurrences before the modern era. The problem is, again, the concept of what to preserve, and why. These matters of concept are discussed in Chapter IV. Under the 1962 Act, the Korean National Register system empowers provincial or municipal jurisdictions to register significant tangible and intangible cultural properties, monuments, and folk resources. The designation "signifi- cant tangible cultural property" ( ) and "significant cultural property resource" ( *..a. ~.2.-1- ..AH..Al- ..'!'L ) in the city of Seoul, for example, are available for build- ings ineligible for national registration, but worth pro- tecting at the municipal level. Section 1906 of the munici- pal ordinance, the cultural property protection ordinance of the city of Seoul, supports the above designations. 4 The criteria for identifying significant tangible cul- tural property or a cultural property resource of the city of Seoul are not clearly defined in statute. Three Early Western buildings are registered as Significant Tangible 4The city of Seoul's 1906 ordinance was issued for cul- tural property protection of the city of Seoul. Under the ordinance, the definitions of the cultural property and cri- teria for evaluations are the same as those of the national register under the 1962 Act. The only difference is that this ordinance is for properties of local significance. 42 Cultural Property of the City of Seoul (table 3): the Anglican Church of Seoul (fig. 6), built in 1922; the Chundo Religion Meeting Hall, built in 1921; and the Bunsa-Chang, the Armory of Seoul, built in 1884. The mayor of the city of Seoul is responsible for the municipal register and the Korean minister of culture can recommend nomination. The administrative systems of the national and municipal regis- ters are examined below. It can be concluded that the 1962 Act has primarily benefitted traditional buildings of high style. Traditional palaces, temples, forts, or gates are so obviously outstand- ing that no arguments were needed for their nomination. The problem is the preservation of buildings of lesser signifi- cance, whether traditional or Early Western. The 1984 Act The Traditional Building Preservation Act of 1984 might be a turning point in the history of building preservation in Korea. Its intention is to preserve traditional build- ings which were evaluated as less significant under the amended Cultural Property Protection Act of 1962 (table 5). In the 1984 Act, even though it supports traditional Korean buildings, three major points are important: First, the concept of what to preserve is remarkably broadened. Ver- nacular buildings, such as ordinary folk houses, barns, or 43 Table 5. The Traditional Building Preservation Act of 1984 Definition of National Register Criteria for Inclusion Traditional Building* System vernacular houses, Traditional Building- traditional buildings or local temples, to be preserved or districts with historic Confusian schools, Traditional Building District- value (reviewed by the pavilions, to be preserved, cultural property committee) etc ( over 50 yrs of age) *The 1984 Act deals with traditional buildings which the 1962 Act does not cover. **Municipal register system is not provided in the 1984 Act. local structures, which had been mostly ignored, are to be considered seriously. Second, preservation of the context of the building is developed. Rather than focusing on a single building, district nominations are recommended. Third, the role of the public sector in preservation of buildings becomes more than mere caretaking. Surveying or acquiring property is carried out as a part of the preserva- tion. The 1984 Act is working for future preservation, not merely for immediate protection. The Act of 1984 is a desirable evolution of the Act of 1962. Another act which builds upon the base established in the 1962 and 1984 Acts is needed to accommodate the 44 preservation of Early Western buildings. Under the current preservation legislature, there is no further room for ordinary Early Western buildings. Administration In Korea, preservation of historic buildings is under the jurisdiction of the Cultural Assets Maintenance Bureau in the Ministry of Culture (see table 6 for the organiza- tional chart). In 1961, the old dynasty's Property Main- tenance Bureau was transformed into the Cultural Assets Maintenance Bureau within the branch office of the Ministry of Education. After passage of the 1962 Act, the Bureau was moved in 1968 to the Ministry of Culture and Information. In January, 1990, the Ministry of Culture and Information was divided into the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. More active management can now be expected from the new Ministry. As seen in the organizational chart of the Cultural Assets Management Bureau {table 6), each division of the Bureau is assigned by its significant properties, such as the divisions of the Chang-duk Palace, or the Duk-su Palace, or the Kyung-bok Palace. Considering that the former body of the Bureau was the old Dynasty's Property Maintenance, continuing emphasis on the old palaces is understandable. What the existing divisions have achieved, through the 45 Table 6. The Organizational Chart of the Cultural Assets Management Bureau in the Korean Ministry of Culture • 3 fff. 9 y: 10 e 11 B 12 ~ 13 E3 E3 :ft • - 71< it!! ft If ~ ii: ~ ~ M -g ,g ,g 'g' 'rI $ ~ 6rf $ m $ $ $ ;e u .m n f! fl fl m ffi m m m m m .,. ($ 12) ii ~ e ~ ~ ~ El :;j;;Jit 1-B 3 'G1 ~ /jg :ff. tli m w. rifi ~ I ~ .f'l '5[ y: y: /fa :!: ~ (ft ~ ft ft ft if- 6rf 6rf 6rf 6rf l!;t l!;t l!;t ;ft~ ;e ;e 1. cultural assets management bureau ~ ~ 6rf 91'. 6rf ~ 2. planning officer ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m 3. section of general affairs 16 17 18 19 ffr ffr rf. ffr 4. cultural property section 1 20 21 22 23 5. cultural property section 2 6. section of property management 7. section of palace garden management 16. pre-hlstOflc survey 8. section of restratlon 17. arts and crafts 9. cultural property research Institute 18. folklore 10 . division of Changkyung palace 19. preservation science 11. dfvls.fon of Changduk palace 20. Kyungjoo cultural property 12. division of Duksu palace 21 . Booyu cultural property 13. division of Kyungbok palace 22. Changwon cultural propefty 14. division of chongmyo shrine 23. Mokpo maritime resources 15. division of regional management 46 recent turbulent history including the Korea War and far- reaching economic policies, cannot be underestimated. The Cultural Property Committee is the administrative body of the National Register of Historic Buildings. Under both the 1962 and the 1984 Acts, the Committee reviews designation, removal, rehabilitation, restoration, or main- • tenance of cultural properties. The Committee also reviews the Minister's recommendation of nominating Provincial or Municipal Registers. The Committee is not a permanent office. Its members are appointed for a two-year term by the Minister of Culture from among professionals of each field: history, architec- ture, archaeology, traditional music, traditional dance, folklore, traditional craftsmanship, animal, and plants. The total committee membership is fewer than 50, divided into five subcommittees. The first subcommittee has been in charge of building preservation related to The Treasure, the Historic Relic, The Significant Folk Resources, and The Tra- ditional Building Preservation Act of 1984. Examining the list of the first subcommittee members since 1961 shows that most were professors of Korean History. One member related to architecture was always included, and most were archi- tects or professors of traditional architecture.5 5Jae-hoon Chung," A Brief History of the Cultural Pro- perty Committee, Cultural Property 18 (December 1985): 1-18. 47 On the other hand, at the municipal level, the Cultural Property Department under the Culture and Tourism Bureau of the city of Seoul, is responsible for the management of municipally registered buildings. According to the regula- tion 2098 under the 1906 ordinance of the city of Seoul, the Department also establishes the Cultural Property Committee of the city of Seoul as a consultant body. The mayor of Seoul appoints the Committee members among the professionals of the cultural property matters. The Committee consists of 20 to 30 members, whose tenure is two years. Implementation According to a 1985 report, "A Brief History of the Cultural Property Committee" by Jae-hoon Chung,6 the first subcommittee of 1984 reviewed 118 buildings to determine their designation, removal, or rehabilitation.7 Although most of these were restorations of historic buildings, out of seventeen committee members, only two had architectural backgrounds, and their specialization was Korean history before the modern era. It may not be reasonable to ask the current first subcommittee to consider matters of Early Western architecture. However, even for the preservation of 6Ibid. 7This did not even include works produced by the 1984 Act. 48 traditional Korean architecture, more specialized subcommit- tees are required. Under the amended 1962 Act and the 1984 Act, the pro- cess of eligibility for nomination to the National Register is not open to the public. Since in the past most historic buildings nominated were those of national ownership, there I has been little need for owner consent. The atmosphere sur- rounding the process of eligibility has been that it is only the Committee's business. In addition, without the recogni- tion of the first subcommittee, a building cannot even be considered for nomination. The current administration allows no public involvement. Once a building is designated, it is expected that it will be protected. Conf_licts between development and pres- _ervation are troublesome, however. Neither the amended 1962 Act nor the 1984 Act provided for reviewing processes to settle conflicts. The Building Code of Korea does, however, mention that permission from the Minister of Construction is required when a building is to be constructed within 100 meters of the boundary of a national registered property or district.a Under the City Planning Code of Korea, the Minister of Construction can proclaim several characteristic zones in a 8Korean Building Code, Section 7.3 of the Enforcement Ordinance. 49 city, including the preservation zone, which aims to protect or preserve nationally or municipally registered buildings in the urban area.9 No structure can be built in the zone unless it is for the purpose of managing the registered buildings. When the mayor agrees that there would be no harm done to the registered buildings in constructing a new • structure in this zone, and with the permission of the Minister of Culture, the new structure can be built. Under the existing Acts, the Korean national register system, which worked well with the old Dynasty's property, requires several improvements for the preservation of urban properties in the 1990s. Considering the location of Early Western buildings--mostly in the downtown areas of larger cities--the National Register system must implement new methods: e.g., more specified subcommittees, public pro- ·cesses of eligibility, and clearly stated review processes for resolving conflicts between development and preserva- tion. Chapter IV outlines these suggestions in more detail. Incentives Compared to the nationally owned traditional Korean buildings, most Early Western buildings are privately owned. One way to promote the preservation of these Early Western buildings is through economic incentives. While the seventh 9Korean Urban Planning Code, Section 19. 50 and final chapter of the 1962 Act emphasizes penal regula- tions for damage to a registered building, it hardly men- tions economic incentives. 10 One of the four purposes of the National Register sys- tem, outlined in the Introduction, is honorific distinc- tions, provided by the Korean National Register system under • the current system of legislature, administration, implemen- tation, and incentives. To serve the other three purposes-- as a pla~ning tool, a research database, and a base for eco- nomic incentives--several suggestions to the current system are made in the following chapter. lOMaintenance expenses can be supported by the govern- ment when a registered property is owned by a certified foundation. See the 1962 Act, Section 28. 51 CHAPTER IV SUGGESTIONS FOR THE KOREAN NATIONAL REGISTER SYSTEM TO PRESERVE EARLY WESTERN ARCHITECTURE Overview There are a variety of considerations that motivate preservation efforts. In the current Korean national regis- ter system, it is stated that "cultural properties are pre- served to strive for the cultural betterment of the Korean people and mankind." As examined in Chapter III, the tan- gible cultural properties preserved so far have been mostly elite Korean traditional buildings. Only after 1984 were vernacular traditional buildings considered under the national register system. Excluding exceptional cases, early Western buildings have not received the same kind of attention. There is little room for early Western buildings • in the existing Korean national register system. The severe dichotomy between traditional and Western- influenced architecture in Korea reveals a special aspect of Korean society. Every cultural aspect in Korea reflects this same dichotomy: fine arts, music, dance, fashions, even medicine, all are divided into either traditional or Western categories. In Korean universities, some 52 departments are divided into two major groups, e.g., traditional and Western music, traditional and Western dance, and each group has unique standards that are not applied to the other group. Given this situation, it is logical and necessary to have separate laws, one set for the preservation of tradi- • tional buildings and the other for the preservation of early Western buildings. Because the 1962 and 1984 acts are solely concerned with the preservation of traditional Korean buildings, it is time for a new act that covers early Western buildings. To be recognized as a cultural property, a building in Korea (and in the United States) usually must be more than 50 years old. Historians generally agree that historic value of a property can be evaluated properly at least 50 years after its completion. Fifty years ago, in the 1940s, traditional Korean architecture was no longer dominant and early Western architecture had reshaped the townscape of • Seoul. Since the 1920s, commercial offices, department stores, theaters, and banks in the Western modern style have become more common in downtown Seoul than traditional build- ings. It has been argued among architectural historians in Korea that buildings in the early Western style, or Western modernism, are from the very recent past and are therefore 53 less valuable to preserve. This argument ignores the real- ity, however, that if these buildings are not preserved now, structures or objects of the late nineteenth and early twen- tieth century will cease to exist in Korea. If the only cultural properties preserved are traditional Korean build- ings, it will appear in the future that Korean history • stopped in the late nineteenth century, and that nothing of historical and architectural consequence was built after that. The proposed act must ensure the preservation of sig- nificant cultural properties created shortly after Korea opened its doors to the Western world, when Western influ- ences began affecting Korean society. Early Western build- ings as well as other properties of significance in the early modern era of Korea must receive proper attention under the proposed new act. The proposed new act is directed toward the preserva- tion of structures that will be useful for future genera- tions in interpreting the modern era, not just for the preservation of early Western buildings. Starting with the preservation of early Western buildings in Seoul, Korea, the proposed new act can accommodate significant cultural re- sources of the recent past, such as well designed buildings of the 1960s and 1970s by Korean architects. 54 Historic preservation has more to do with the present and the future than with the past. 1 As examples, consider Eero Saarinen's Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Virginia, built in 1962, and Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum in New York, completed in 1959. Both are listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, even though they are not yet fifty years old. The proposed new act in Korea could overcome the reluctance of people to support the preservation of buildings constructed during their own life- time. Legislation In the proposed new act, it will be reasonable to start from a broadened definition of "cultural property," a new interpretation of "preservation," and a consideration of new criteria for inclusion in the national register system. As noted, the 1962 Act divides cultural property into tangible and intangible classes. One of the most unique and desir- able sections of the existing Korean national register sys- tem is the encouragement of the preservation of intangible cultural properties, such as traditional dance, music and craftsmanship. Although it is recommended that intangible 1w. Brown Morton III, "What Do We Preserve, and Why?" in The American Mosaic, ed. Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1988), p. 176. 55 cultural properties be included in the proposed new register system, this thesis is concerned only with tangible cultural properties, such as buildings. In the proposed legislation, the definition of tangible cultural property should be broadened so that it can include various resources related to the modern era in Korea, • including early Western buildings. While the existing Acts of 1962 and 1984 explicitly point out tangible cultural pro- perties (such as traditional wooden structures), the pro- posed new act may simply use broader categories, such as districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects. Under these categories, the proposed new register system can have the potential to accommodate any significant resource of the modern era in Korea. The existing definitions of cultural properties in the 1962 and 1984 Acts--"tangible property," "intangible property," "monuments," and "folk resources"-- are apt to limit eligibility if they are applied to cultural resources of the modern era in Korea. In the proposed new • act, it is desirable to set only possible categories for properties, not to limit what they should be, and to leave room for any significant resource. Under these comprehensive definitions, not only Western buildings of the early twentieth century, but battlefields of the Korean War of 1950-53, birth sites of 56 economic growth in the 1970s, and even the main stadium of the 1988 Seoul Olympic Garnes might, in time, be eligible. The cultural properties eligible for the proposed new national register occupy a position different from tradi- tional artifacts. Unlike traditional properties, cultural properties of the modern era, including early Western build- • ings, are not static. While old palaces are managed like parks and open to the public, college halls, department stores, or banks built in the 1920s or 1930s are still func- tioning as they were originally built. When they can no longer serve this function, they are apt to be demolished. The interpretation of "preservation" and criteria for eval- uation under the proposed new act, therefore, must be dif- ferent from those under the existing acts. Preservation in the proposed new act must be defined to mean identification, evaluation, recording, documentation, curation, acquisition, protection, management, rehabilita- tion, restoration, stabilization, maintenance and recon- struction, or any combination of the foregoing activities.2 This broad interpretation of preservation represents con- cepts not present in the existing acts. 2This enumeration is drawn from the leaflet "'Historic Preservation' and 'Historic Properties,'" Local Preserva- tion: A Service of the National Park Service (Washington, D.C.: Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service, n.d.), n.p. 57 The above activities suggest new, active directions in preservation. Considering the current status of early Western buildings in Seoul, preservation should start with identification, evaluation, and documentation. Without this, the character of existing resources of the modern era in Korea cannot be defined, nor can their significance be judged. A building's significance is evaluated by relative values, such as relative significance in relation to other buildings in the city or in the nation. Through identifica- tion and documentation of existing resources, a comparative evaluation can be made. Such evaluations can provide a con- sistent and defensible basis, upon which building preserva- tion must depend. "A Basic Study of Developing Inventory and Evaluation Forms for Modern Buildings in Seoul, Korea," listed in the Appendix, can be referred to in these matters. Formulation of the proposed new national register can follow this inventory and evaluation phase. Rehabilitation, restoration, or stabilization are im- • portant to include in the proposed new act. Buildings in the early Western style or Western modernism are still woven into the ordinary daily lives of people in Seoul. Not all registered buildings can be museums, nor is this desirable. Thus, the best way to keep them vital is to encourage their continued use. 58 Under the 1962 Act, registered buildings cannot be changed unless changes are for the purpose of restoration permitted by the Cultural Property Committee. Section 7 of the 1962 Act is devoted to the penal regulations, according to which one can be sentences for up to ten years in jail or fined ten million won (about fourteen thousand U.S. dol- lars), if he or she damages a registered building. The 1984 Act only permits improving sanitary facilities of vernacular traditional buildings for the owners' or users' convenience. For the protection of the most important traditional build- ings, these severe regulations worked very well. Since most of the affected buildings are not used in daily living, those regulations cause few inconveniences. However, con- sidering early Western buildings which have been serving their original functions, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse are inevitable to promote this continual use. The proposed new national register system should not limit the rehabilitation or adaptive reuse of the early • Western buildings. Rather, rehabilitation should be active- ly encouraged. Along with registration, standards for rehabilitation of registered buildings should be prepared as stated in the following ordinance.3 3rn the United States, the National Park Service pub- lished The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehab- ilitation and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings with the assistance of professional and support staff. Since 1979, it has been expanded and updated. 59 Under the proposed new act, it is desirable that the national register criteria recognize the broadened range of properties and accommodate different levels of significance, including modern Korean political and architectural and engineering history. Unlike the one fixed level of signifi- cance in the existing acts, however, the proposed new regis- ter must encourage the inclusion of properties significant at both the national and local levels. Significance is a comparative judgment and is affected by context. What is significant in one city may have no meaning at all in other cities; provincially valuable buildings may be insignificant from a national perspective. If buildings of both national and local significance can be nominated to the same register system and acquire the same status, problems may arise about both buildings being treated or honored equally. What is the use of the national register system, it might be argued, if any building can be listed and thus acquire equal status regardless of its level • of significance? Some American preservation specialists address the same concern. Paul E. Sprague said that "you can get anything on this official list called the National Register of Historic 60 Places; all you have to do is to make a case. 114 Thomas F. King suggested that if you can nominate whatever you want to the National Register, the list will lose its meaning. 5 However, reconsidering one purpose of the national register --retaining a nation's significant cultural properties-- might well mean that a locally significant building is as meaningful as a nationally significant one, and hence both deserve the same attention. Under these comprehensive guidelines, the three demolished buildings discussed in Chapter I could have been registered as locally significant resources. The next component to be examined for a more inclusive register system is the revision of evaluation criteria. For detailed criteria, the U.S. national register system can provide a convenient starting point. The U.S. National His- toric Preservation Act of 1966 divides the national register criteria into four categories: 1. A property that is associated with events that have • made significant contributions to the broad patterns of U. S . 4william J. Murtagh, "Forum on the Meaningful Assess- ment of the Built Environment," cited in Pamela Thurber, ed., Preservation Policy Research--Controversies in Historic Preservation: Understanding the Preservation Movement Today (Washington, D.C.: The National Trust for Historic Preser- vation, 1983), pp. 71-72. 5Thomas F. King, "Is There a Future for the National Register?" in Preservation Policy Research, ed. Pamela Thurber (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1985), p. 70. 61 history. The significant parts of "broad patterns" of national, state, or local history might, for example, exem- plify the economic growth or decline of a community during a particular period, or the development of a transportation or communication system. With this criterion, the historic rail road depots, early movie theaters, or early district • courts built in Western styles in Seoul could be registered and preserved. 2. A property that is associated with the lives of persons significant in U.S. history. The property's asso- ciation with an individual can be important at the national, state, or local level. 3. The third criterion is complex and has several sub- parts. The first subpart provides that a property may be registered if it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. This means a property may be registered if it is a good example of a par- ticular kind of architectural style, engineering, landscape • architecture, or the vernacular forms of construction used in a region during a particular period. Considering not only architectural style, but also type of engineering, landscape architecture, or vernacular construction form, this act can help preserve the integral development of Korean society after Western influence. 62 The second subpart concerns property that represent the work of a master. It allows the registration of properties designed or built by master architects, engineers, landscape architects, or builders. Under the old acts, buildings of leading architects in Korea during and after the 1920s have hardly had a chance to be preserved. The concept that was previously applied to the levels of significance needs to be extended here. Compared to traditional buildings built throughout a long history, the works of leading architects in the modern era may look inferior. However, it is desir- able to evaluate an architect's work in relation to that of his contemporaries, not his ancestors. Through that judg- ment, characteristics of a period can be revealed as it was, and then be preserved. For future generations, the new register system can provide room for the work of masters in each period, whether the 1920s, the 1960s, or even the 1990s. The third subpart provides that a property may be reg- ' istered if it possesses high artistic value. Such a proper- ty might include buildings that have fine murals or stone work, or finely designed landscapes. The final subpart concerns the recognition of a dis- trict. It says that a property may be registered if it represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. A district may 63 be significant as a whole, even though it may be composed of elements, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that would not qualify individually. The identity of a district results from the grouping of features and their interrela- tionships. For example, a group of warehouses, which indi- vidually are not significant, may be important because of their collective representation of an architectural style, their collective use of space, or their collective associa- tion with a community's industrial development. Synthesizing these criteria, the proposed new register system might consider (a) association with significant events in modern Korean history, (b) association with sig- nificant persons in modern Korean history, (c) distinctive examples of architecture, landscape architecture, engineer- ing, or works of masters, or collective significance as a district. All of these criteria can be used at the nation- al, provincial, and local significance levels. To make the proposed new national register system effi- cient and practical, the foregoing suggestions must be coupled with effective administration, and the implementa- tion of suitable economic incentives must be provided. These are discussed in the following sections. 64 Administration When a new national register system is planned for the cultural resources of modern Korea, administrative backing is needed. The possibility of administering the proposed new register within the existing government organization will be examined first. The existing national register system is maintained .in two cultural property divisions in the Cultural Assets Man- agement Bureau of Korea. All nominations are reviewed by the Cultural Property Committee, which is composed of pro- fessionals in the field with two-year tenure. Within the existing administrative structure there are problems: First, there are no proper professional govern- ment bodies at the provincial and local levels. Therefore, locally and provincially significant resources are apt to receive less attention, and the central preservation pro- grams are ineffective in reaching out to the local level. Second, while the roles of the local or provincial bodies are weak, the Cultural Property Committee's roles are, in inverse proportion, too big for its capabilities. These problems should be examined carefully for the sake of both the existing and the proposed register systems. In the Korean cabinet, the Ministry of Culture, recent- ly separated from the Ministry of Culture and Information, became an independent department in January 1990. The 65 Cultural Assets Management Bureau, the central government office responsible for cultural resource management in Korea, is now in the Ministry of Culture (see the organiza- tional chart, table 6). Since the Bureau, established in 1961, was transformed from the former dynasty's property management office, it has served a major role in the pro- tection of grand examples of Koran traditional architecture. Focusing primarily on the management of old Korea's cultural properties, the Bureau has some rigid structural characteristics. Some suggestions for the existing adminis- tration system are required in the proposed new act for the registration of early Western buildings as well as other significant resources of the modern era in Korea. As examined in Chapter III, the Bureau is a centralized and isolated office without linking offices at the local level. It lacks a nationwide network in administering cultural resources. In Seoul, for example, nomination at the local level to the municipal register of cultural pro- perties is carried out in two ways: the mayor of Seoul may nominate through recommendations of the Cultural Property Committee of Seoul; or the Minister of Culture may make a recommendation after consulting with the Cultural Property Committee. There is no administerial linkage, however, between the Cultural Assets Management Bureau and the city of Seoul. Furthermore, the superior government office of 66 the city of Seoul is the Ministry of the Interior, while that of the Bureau is the Ministry of Culture. Nor can the budget of the Ministry of Culture compete with that of the Ministry of the Interior. Regarding connections between the central Bureau and the provincial or local offices, the U.S. Historic Preser- vation Act of 1966 can be examined as a reference for pro- moting a nationwide preservation system at the national, state, and local levels. 6 Under the U.S. Act of 1966, the partnership that is central to the national historic preser- vation program was launched. In the United States, the National Park Service is the federal government body responsible for the nation's historic preservation. The National Park Service is subordinate to the U.S. Department of the Interior (see the U.S. organizational chart of the National Park Service, table 7). The U.S. 1966 Act authorizes the Department of the Interior to establish, maintain, and expand a national • register of historic places. The register is maintained by the National Park Service. The Act also establishes the responsibilities of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), who administer the national historic preservation 6J. Myrick Howard, "Where the Action Is: Preservation and the Local Government," in The American Mosaic, ed. Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1988), p. 103. 67 Table 7. The Organizational Chart of the U.S. National Park Service NATIONAL PARK SERVICE o,_,.,. ODVft DI UC1'0lt OIPIC'& OI cwr1a or OFTICS a, crr1a a, Of''t'IO: or £OUM. rMPLO'fMDIT NlaUC .vraus 1.&:IC..J'S l.HIVS .... .,. . . llfffllMATIONAL OPN>lm.lNlff At't 'AlkS CONC.US IOl&AL IEHl C ,u...11.:.' INFOMATI\JIN SPCCU.1. S1\EIIU STSTUU DIVI S IOII DIYISIOII llillll..DLIFE , QCUATIOII CIMNl'S YECETATIOM UIYI S ION OIYISIC. I program at the state level. Each SHPO is responsible for surveying to identify historic properties, nominating pro- perties to the national register, and other activities. The Act also provides for the certification of local government agencies whose historic preservation programs meet 68 prescribed standards from the SHPO, to assist them in carry- ing out preservation activities at the local level. At least ten percent of the annual historic preservation fund grant made to states under the National Historic Preser- vation Act must be distributed among certified local governments. The federal government is viewed as the standard bearer, while the actual preservation happens through local governments; the state government is in the middle. Korean central-provincial-local structure is different from the U.S. federal-state-local structure. However, to make the proposed new national register system efficient and finally to preserve significant cultural properties at each level, a partnership among these three bodies is required. The current preservation activities in Korea are mostly practiced in the central government sector, the Cultural Assets Management Bureau. It would be ideal if provincial and local administration offices for historic preservation • could be established and linked to the Bureau under the proposed new act. Then the Bureau might play its role in establishing professional criteria and standards, providing incentives for rehabilitation, and protecting historic properties from harm. On the other hand, provincial and local governments might take part in identifying significant properties and 69 nominating them to the proposed new national register. Compared to the number of locally significant buildings, relatively few Korean cultural properties will be of truly national significance. Most properties will be related to people, events, and places essentially of local interest. To establish a national-provincial-local network is critical even for traditional buildings. With the establishment of provincial and local offices, the current roles of the Cultural Property Committee, such as permitting rehabilitation or repairs of local buildings, can be transferred to the local level. While nominations are encouraged to be prepared at the local level, the Com- mittee can make the final review for inclusion on the national register. It would be desirable for the Committee to spend more of its ti.me promoting the national preserva- tion programs or standards. It would be also appropriate if the subcommittee could be enlarged and composed of more spe- cified professionals. As a whole, it can be concluded that, • both for the proposed new national register system and the existing one, enlargement of the existing administration structure is necessary. The national-provincial-local link- age in administration is highly recommended. 70 Implementation As discussed in Chapter III, the existing implementa- tion process reveals several problems. First, the process of determining eligibility for the national register system is not open to the public; second, methods to resolve con- flicts between development and preservation are not estab- lished explicitly. Suggestions for these two problems are discussed below. One of the major characters of the proposed new national register system is its decentralization. Locally significant buildings, such as a city hall and a small bank of early Western style, can be nominated by the local com- munity. It is important to establish an open process of nomination so that everyone, with the help of the local or ·provincial preservation office, has access to nominating what they think significant. Section 101 of the U.S. National Preservation Act of 1966 might be a reference. Briefly, proposing property for nomination to the national register is a three-step process: (a) nominations are reviewed by the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation; (b) if approved, a nomination document is signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Deputy SHPO; and (c) it is forwarded to the Keeper of the national register, who makes the final deci- sion at the National Park Service in Washington, o.c. 71 The partnership of federal, state, and local govern- ments in the national historic preservation program is operated under the U.S. 1966 Act. The recommendation- nomination-registration process of the national register process varies in detail from state to state. Oregon maintains an open door nomination policy. According to the leaflet, "How to Prepare Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places," prepared by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office in 1988, any citi- zen may propose any property for listing in the national register, but safeguards are built into the system to ensure that the concerns of the property owners and local govern- ment are addressed.7 Before the listing process begins, a proponent, often the property owner or the owner's representative, fills out a nomination form. The form requires a detailed description of the property as well as a statement of the property's historical significance. • The State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, the recommending body, consists of nine members appointed by the Governor. At least five members must have professional credentials in history, archaeology, architectural history, architecture, and historical architecture. In Oregon, the 7oregon State Historic Preservation Office, How to Pre- pare Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places (Salem: Division of Parks and Recreation, 1988). 72 statute provides that one member must be a native American Indian. The Committee customarily meets for the purpose of reviewing nominations four times a year. It would be desirable if the proposed new national register of cultural properties for modern Korea could be implemented by the open nominating process in the partner- ship of national-provincial-local government offices. Everyone should be able to nominate whatever they think sig- nificant with the help of a local government office. One purpose of being registered is to be protected from future harm. Most conflict is between development and pres- ervation. Since most early Western buildings are located in the middle of urban activities, the frequency of threats from urban renewal and expansion are higher than for proper- ties located elsewhere. Unless some process of resolving conflicts between development and preservation accompany the proposed new national register system, it will not be prac- tical. • This conflict resolution process requires a working partnership among departments in the Korean Cabinet. Most public developments are related to the ministries of Con- struction, Transportation, and Interior. The Ministry of Culture must establish some tools, by law, to protect regis- tered properties against public undertakings practiced by the above departments. Co-operative reviewing processes 73 among departments are necessary to mitigate harm to cultural properties. The existing act lacks this provision. Section 106 of the U.S. 1966 Act suggests some steps for this review process. This section requires that federal agencies consider what effects their actions may have on historic properties. It also requires that federal agencies give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation reason- able opportunity to comment on such actions. Conceived as an advisory body operating at the highest levels of government, the U.S. Advisory Council, an indepen- dent federal agency, has always included cabinet officers. It now consists of 19 members, the secretaries of the Inter- ior and Agriculture, the heads of four other federal agen- cies appointed by the president, four experts of preserva- tion including the chairman of the National Trust for His- toric Preservation and the president of the National Confer- ence of State Historic Preservation Officers, a governor, a mayor, the Capitol architect, and four public members. All federal or federally sponsored activities are sub- ject to review under Section 106, whether activities affect nationally registered or eligible properties. The pro- cedures to be followed in a Section 106 review are referred to as the "Section 106 process," and set forth in regula- tions issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preserva- tion. The process consists of five basic steps: 74 1. Identification of historic properties that a federal action may affect. 2. Evaluation of the significance of potentially affected properties. 3. Assessment of the nature of the effects. 4. Consultation with preservation experts to avoid or reduce harmful effects. 5. Obtaining the Advisory Council's comments and proceeding with agreed decision. The major problem with the U.S. Advisory Committee at the federal level is that it is "advisory." It can only slow down a harmful project; it cannot prevent a major harm to historic buildings. WHile the Section 106 review process does not authorize the cessation or abandonment of projects that will harm historic properties, establishing this kind of tool is important. Although called a "paper tiger," tools such as the 106 review process are effective in spreading awareness of preservation issues in every govern- mental action. Possible suggestions in Korea might be to organize interdepartmental councils on preservation of cultural properties, and to establish reviewing processes as outlined above. It would be more desirable for Korea to have an improved process based upon the U.S. system. If the future Korean Advisory Council could recommend to the Ministry of 75 Culture that certain actions be taken, then the Ministry of Culture could have the final authority to deny an applica- tion, to approve a project, to prevent demolition, or to require relocation. To resolve conflicts between develop- ment and preservation, the suggestions must be secure under the proposed new act. Incentives Economic incentives for the preservation of historic properties are among the most useful tools a government can use to protect and enhance its historical environment. Both for the existing and future preservation programs in Korea, economic incentives must be established. One progressive component that the proposed new national register system can provide is tax incentives. The governmental role in pre- serving historic buildings must be changed from one of charging fines to that of promoting economic benefits. U.S. examples of tax incentives on preserving historic buildings are examined again, focusing on federal examples. According to John M. Fowler, tax incentives have been one of the driving forces in U.S. preservation actions.a In 1976, as part of the comprehensive Tax Reform Act, the U.S. 8John M. Fowler, "The Federal Government As Standard Bearer," in The American Mosaic, ed. Robert El Stipe and Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1988 ) , p. 66. 76 Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code to redress the imbalance between the tax treatment of new construction and rehabilitation of historic properties. The 1976 amendments provided some modest incentives for rehabilitating historic properties. These changes spurred an increase in preserva- tion investment over the next few years, but it took the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 to transform the economics of historic preservation. Since that time, private invest- ment in rehabilitation has surpassed all expectations and far exceeded the amount of direct preservation grant funds distributed during the 20 years of the U.S. 1966 Act.9 The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) made sweeping changes to tax treatment of investment in real estate development. An investment tax credit system was introduced to stimulate investment in the rehabilitation of older structures, including but not limited to historic buildings. This authorized tax credits equivalent to 15 percent of the investment in qualified rehabilitation expenses for 30-year-old commercial buildings and 20 percent for those 40 years old. It also authorized a 25 percent tax credit for historic buildings, provideing the Secretary of 9Elizabeth A. Lyon, "The State: Preservation in the Middle," in The American Mosaic, ed. Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1988), p. 64. 77 the Interior certified both the significance and the rehabilitation.10 The Tax Reform Act was signed in 1986, making compre- hensive changes to the Internal Revenue Code. The 1986 Act reduced the advantages and thus the investments in proper- ties, which had been encouraged under the 1981 Act. A num- • ber of the changes directly affect the rehabilitation of historic buildings. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 establishes: 1. A 20 percent tax credit for substantial rehabilita- tion of historic buildings for commercial, industrial, and rental residential purposes, and a 10 percent tax credit for the substantial rehabilitation for nonresidential purposes of buildings built before 1936. 2. A straight-line depreciation period of 27.5 years for residential property and 31.5 years for nonresidential property for the depreciable basis of the rehabilitated building reduced by the amount of the tax credit claimed. The eligible historic buildings are buildings that are listed individually in the national register of historic places, or significant buildings located in a registered historic district. lOThe National Trust for Historic Preservation, "Tax Incentives: Their Impact and Proposed Changes," in The Preservation Year Book (Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1987), p. 362. 78 Other incentives include a property tax freeze. The Oregon statute provides for special assessment of historic property. Under this program, an owner of a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places may have the true cash value of the property "frozen" for fifteen years. This allows the owner to restore or improve the condition of • a property and not pay taxes on the resulting increases in the property's value until the fifteen-year period has expired. At the end of the period, the owner will begin to pay taxes on the full value of the property, but does not have to pay back the tax savings that were accumulated during the fifteen-year special assessment period. 11 The State Historic Preservation Office, the National Park Service, and the Internal Revenue Service are respon- sible for the procedures of the above tax incentives. Clearly, the federal tax incentives dramatically influenced historic preservation in the United States. The essence of the tax incentive program is the harnessing of the economic forces of the marketplace with the established social policy goals of preserving the national patrimony. While this alliance may have its problem at times, its successes demon- strate the resourcefulness of the preservation movement and its ability to tap the necessary sources of support for a 11oregon Department of Transportation, State Historic Preservation Office, Special Assessment of Historic Preser- vation, Fact Sheet 2253, Doc H#2 (Salem, Ore.: Author). 79 long-term, broad-based approach to the preservation of pro- perties that are, after all, in the marketplace as being essentially commodities.12 It would be desirable to review whether the Korean tax system discriminates against reuse of historic buildings in favor of modern replacement. Then, certain tax incentives, such as those described above, should be established to make the proposed new register system more effective. 12 Ibid., p. 69. 80 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION The 1962 Act established a Korean national register of cultural property to list grand examples of traditional architecture, and the 1984 Act expanded the register to accommodate less grand but significant traditional buildings and districts. Both Acts, however, were structured for tra- ditional Korean architecture. Administration and implemen- tation of the register system also have served this purpose. In Seoul, only 23 exceptional examples of early Western buildings have been listed under the 1962 Act, mostly as "historic relics." Compared to traditional architecture, early Western architecture has been neglected. Although early Western architecture is not yet fully accepted as a part of Korean cultural heritage, this architecture well represents characteristics of late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Korean society. To understand the development of modern Korea, early Western architecture deserves more attention. Considering these circumstances, a separate national register system for early Western architecture is necessary. There has been little research in this direction, however. 81 This thesis can be regarded as a preliminary proposal for a new national register system which advocates the preservation of early Western buildings in Seoul, Korea. This proposed new national register system is coupled with analysis and suggestions for legislation, administration, implementation and incentives of the existing register system. Contributions of this thesis follow: 1. It provides a basic foundation for the nomination of early Western buildings to the national register. 2. It points out several problems of the existing register system. The legislation tends to focus on single properties of national significance and ignore those of local and district significance. The administration is too centralized and lacks linkage with local and provincial offices. The public has no access to the nomination pro- cess, and there is no substantial review process to resolve conflicts between preservation and development. Severe regulations for registered buildings keep private owners from nominating their properties. 3. It suggests improvements for the above problems. Inclusion of locally as well as nationally significant buildings and districts can broaden the rigid concept of what cultural properties should be. With the enforcement of local administrative offices, the central office can devote 82 its time to more comprehensive national preservation pro- grams or standards. An open nomination process can increase public participation in the preservation of the nation's heritage. A conflict-resolving process, co-operated between related ministries in the cabinet can diminish harm to his- toric properties. Rather than regulations which penalize, I regulations should encourage economic benefits, such as a tax incentive and a property tax freeze. This can attract private developers and property owners to preserve historic buildings. This thesis, which focuses on the preservation of early Western buildings, can be directed toward the preservation of other significant cultural properties of the modern era and recent Korean history. It is preliminary research which discuss only the public sector of preservation. For further research, the role of the private sector in preservation and the structure of preservation education that produces future preservationists should be investigated. 83 • APPENDIX RESULTS OF "A BASIC STUDY OF DEVELOPING INVENTORY AND EVALUATION FORM FOR MODERN BUILDINGS IN SEOUL, KOREA" 84 I. Introduction In any plan for preserving historic buildings, the basic step is above all a comprehensive inventory and evaluation of existing resources. Only on a solid foundation of a thorough inventory and reasonable evaluation can we expect an actual preservation plan. Without an Inventory and evaluation we can not define the character of existing resources nor have a balanced tool for a community's planning which would result in an effective preservation plan. Effective preservation plans for historic buildings such as easements, tax incentives, zoning and land use controls fundamentally require judgements of what buildings should have priority, and the priority decision springs from a through inventory and evaluation of existing resources. The values of inventory and evaluation work in preserving historic buildings are, briefly, to identify existing buildings and to provide data for priority decisions. In contrast to the preservation of traditional historic buildings in Korea, modern buildings which were built by western influence around the late 19th and early 20th century haven't had proper attention for their protection . It can be said that there are no strategies for preservation of these historic modern buildings because still there is no official inventory and evaluation of them. Up to now, a few scholars have tried to identify historic modern buildings by themselves but this information is for the purpose of data for architectural history rather than that of a tool for preservation plans. In order to have an impact on preservation plans, the inventory and evaluation work should be official. What is needed most basically to preserve historic modern buildings in Seoul , Korea is an official inventory and evaluation· of existing modern buildings. Under these circumstances my research goal is to develop inventory and evaluation forms for historic modern buildings in Seoul , Korea. I believe comprehensive forms for inventory and evaluation of the buildings are one of most basic and urgent assignments for preserving historic modern buildings in Seoul, Korea. The purpose of the research is to suggest a basic inventory and evaluation form for modern buildings in Seoul, Korea so that they might provide a common survey form for individual scholars and be referred to an official form for government workers. 85 2. An Architectural Inventory Form for Modern Buildings in Seoul, Korea 2-1 What is a building inventory ? In short, it is to record information about each building such as its name, location, owner, present use, its date, architect, original use and so on. A description of its appearance and construction generally follow along with photos and drawings. According to the purpose of an inventory, the forms can be varied. In north America at a national level, the Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings and the Historic American Buildings Survey can be regarded as good examples. 1 At the state and local level each state and city develop its own forms but basic contents are similar. The inventory form that I developed for this paper is to record modern buildings in Seoul, Korea, and I referred in large portion to Oregon State Inventory Forms, Ellis Lawrence Building Survey forms and other U.S. and Canadian examples. 1 Harold Kalman," An Evaluation System for Architectural Survey." _AELvol8 no.3 (1976) : 3 2-2 What to record in a building inventory? Generally a building Inventory form contains four information categories about buildings except basic information : Basic information, Historic information, Architectural information . and Integrity Information. BASIC INFORMATION This Is for the identification of a building with basic informations such as Common name, Location, Current function, Built year HISTORIC INFORMATION This is for the record of a building's historic background. Historic name Historic function Associative events or persons Theme* *Choices for theme are described in chapter 2-3. 86 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION This is to describe a building's physical appearance and its architectural backgrounds. Architect Contractor Artist / Craftsman Design year ( begin / end ) Construction year ( begin / end ) Style** Description*** Plan type Foundation material Stories Basement Roof form Wall construction Structural frame Primary window type Exterior surface material Decorative features Landscape features Associated structures Setting **Choices for style are described in chapter 2-4. ***Choices for each items in the Description are listed in Appendix I. INTEGRITY INFORMATION This is to record a building's current conditions as to historic and architectural integrity. Status ( survived / demolished ) Moved Alterations / Additions Condition ( good / fair / poor ) Exterior Integrity - essentially intact minor change but original character intact moderate change ; some original character remains major change ; original character lost Interior Integrity - essentially intact minor change but original character intact moderate change ; some original character remains major change ; original character lost Site Integrity - essentially intact minor change but original character intact moderate change ; some original character remains major change ; original character lost 87 2-3 Theme and historic function The theme is to give an idea of a building's involvement or contribution to the local history. The historic function is to address a building's historic usage. The relation between theme and function might be very close ; if a theme Is 'commercial' then functions might be 'office', 'hotel', 'bank' and so on. The theme list with functions for modern buildings in Seoul, Korea can be categorized as follows. Theme / Functions • Commercial office hotel bank stock market department store chamber of commerce product exhibit Communication post office newspaper company radio station Education academic office high school college professional school university Fine/Applied Arts museum Foreign Diplomacy consulate office consular's residence legation office Lee Dynasty palace Literature Law court house Local government city hall police office fire department Manufacturing publication company 88 Medicine hospital drug store Military armoury Monument gate tablet house National Government cabinet office Performing Arts theater Politics congress party office Provincial Government provincial hail Recreation swimming pool indoor court movie theater Religion church meeting hail monastery office Residence Science green house astronomical observatory Transportation railway station bus station 2-4 Style During the mid 19th to early 20th century, architecture of western Europe and the United States was experiencing stylistic confusions, various classic revivals, eclecticism, new materials technology, and new building types as well. When Korea opened its door to the western world in 1876, these various architectural styles were introduced to Seoul, Korea via many routes. Modern buildings in Seoul, Korea are mostly the new building types which had not existed in its architectural history: foreign legations, Christian churches, western type hospitals, schools, offices, hotels and so on. Each new building brought new style, material and technology. On the other hand, existing traditional styles, mainly for wooden structures, 89 were added or mixed with the new styles. Therefore it is often very difficult or impossible to define precisely a modern building's architectural style. However I believe it is worth while to investigate modern building's stylistic character which represents dynamic situations of a society's sudden change. The following is a style list which aims to capture any modern building's stylistic appearance. Chung-Dong Kim 's A Study on the Modern Architecture, Seoul, ~ was used to view modern buildings in Seoul and Nicholas Pevsner' s An Outline of European Architecture, Leland Roth's A Concise History of American Architecture, Marcus Whufflen 's American Architecture since 1780 and Rosaline Clark 's Architecture Oregon Style were consulted in making the style list. American Colonial Revival* Art Deco Baroque/Nee Baroque** Baroque Revival Classic/Nee Classic Classic Revival Commercial Egyptian Exotic*** Gothic Gothic Revival Georgian Georgian Revival Half Modernism/Transitional **** International Industrial Jacobethan Moslem None • Prairie Renaissance Renaissance Revival French Renaissance Romanesque Romanesque Revival Second Empire Sullivanesque Tudor Traditional/Traditional Revival***** Mixed Traditional Unknown 90 * American Colonial Revival style is like styles of the American mission schools which have the atmosphere of American colonial styles. It might have similar appearance to Georgian or Jacobethan revival style but I define American colonial revival as a very stripped style of them. Mostly high schools built early 1900s by American evangelists may be in this category. ** The difference between an original style and its revival can be defined like this ; a original style means its representing genuine principles of a style while revival refers to watered style. For example, Baroque or Neo Baroque style applies to a building which represents high style of Baroque principles while Baroque Revival is for a building which retains some Baroque elements. *** Exotic refers to a stylistic mix which includes an atmosphere of a style other than those of western Europe or U.S. origins. **** Half Modernism / Transitional style is for a building which has characteristics from both International style and other styles before International style. ***** Traditional style refers to the Korean traditional style. In this case Traditional/ Traditional Revival styles adopt traditional principles of Korean architecture mostly for new building types On the other hand, Mixed Traditional style combines western styles with traditional styles. 2-5 An inventory form As a result of the above process an inventory form can be made as in Fig. 1. 3. An Architectural Evaluation Form for Modern Buildings in Seoul To evaluate a building's historic or architectural significance In a numerical way might be • illogical. However, as a tool for preservation planning, a numerical value system is inevitable. I believe that the point here is not the justification of evaluating a building in a tangible way but the rationalization and simplification of that tangible way. 3-1 Criteria for evaluation Basically three criteria are considered : Historic significance, Architectural significance and Integrity significance, which meet the categories from the inventory form. Each significance field Is assigned numerical values; Historic significance is assigned 40 points, Architectural significance is also 40 points and Integral significance Is 40 points. Criteria and point distribution for each significance Is as follows ; 91 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE ( total 40 points} ASSOCIATIVE VALUE OF HISTORIC EVENTS OR ACTIVITIES : choices: strong association with national historic events or activities 15 strong association with provincial historic events or activities 10 strong association with local historic events or activities 8 some association with historic events or activities 5 no known association with historic events or activities 0 ASSOCIATIVE VALUE OF HISTORIC PERSON : choices: strong association with person(s) significant in national history 15 strong association with person(s) significant in provincial history 1O strong association with person(s) significant in local history 8 some association with historic person(s) 5 no known association with historic person(s) O ASSOCIATIVE VALUE OF IDEAL, INSTITUTION OR POLITICAL ENTITY major symbolic association with national ideal or institution 10 major symbolic association with provincial ideal or institution 7 major symbolic association with local ideal or institution 5 some significant symbolic association 3 no known significant symbolic association 0 ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ( total 40 points} DISTINCTION OF STYLE choices: prime example of its style nationwide 10 has distinctive features of its style in Seoul 8 few features associated with its style 5 not applicable 0 DISTINCTION OF ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL & CRAFTSMANSHIP choices : significant new craftsmanship or new materials in Seoul 10 high quality skllled work with some fine materials 10 better than average workmanship and materials 7 ordinary construction with no special features 3 unknown 0 92 DISTINCTION OF BUILDING TYPE ( ORIGINAL USE) choices: unique In the history of architecture nationwide 10 unique in the history of architecture, Seoul 8 one of few examples 6 one of several examples 3 unknown 0 DISTINCTION OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN choices : one of best designs of the period 10 above average design of the period 8 average design of the period 5 below average design of the period 0 INTEGRAL SIGNIFICANCE ( total 40 points) EXTERIOR INTEGRITY choices : essentially intact 15 minor change but original character intact 9 moderate change ; some original character remains 4 major change ; original character lost 0 INTERIOR INTEGRITY choices: essentially intact 15 minor change but original character intact 9 moderate change ; some original character remains 4 major change ; original character lost 0 SITE INTEGRITY choices : essentially intact 10 minor change but original character intact 9 moderate change ; some original character remains 4 major change ; original character lost 0 3-2 Rank According to the scores from the evaluation four ranking decisions can be made. (Exact numerical limits of each of the following ranks should be set after the initial evaluation.) 93 PRIMARY Buildings ranked as 'primary' might be interpreted to have significant historic association, excellent architectural meaning and integrity. In case the evaluation rank is used for reference data to estimate future damage from an urban undertaking, buildings ranked 'primary' should be considered seriously for protection . It would be appropriate to nominate those 'primary' ranked buildings to the National Register soon. SECONDARY 'Secondary' ranked buildings refer to the ones which have less significance historically and less excellence or integrity architecturally than those which are ranked 'primary' . They have sufficient distinction historically or architecturally to be eligible for the Municipal Register. Il::tlBQ Buildings ranked 'third' can be interpreted to have some significance historically and architecturally or to have been altered enough to lose their integrity. They would not be eligible to be nominated for any Register except as an element of a significant group nomination. FOURTH Buildings ranked 'fourth' are those which have little known historic and architectural significance or have lost their Integrity as historic modern buildings. 'Fourth' ranked buildings may be demolished if necessary. But it Is recommended that a full written description, photographs and drawings first document the building . 3-3 An evaluation form As a result of the above process an evaluation form can be made as in Fig. 2 4. Conclusion In this paper I tried to produce inventory and evaluation forms for historic modern buildings in Seoul, Korea referring to the Oregon State Inventory Form, Ellis Lawrence Buildings Survey Forms and other available resources. The results are listed in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. I believe this is the first attempt to produce thorough inventory and evaluation forms for modern buildings in Seoul , Korea. I hope this paper will be regarded as a basic study for developing inventory and evaluation forms for historic modern buildings in Seoul, Korea. It is the first step in the large, important process of identifying, recording and preserving historic modern buildings in Seoul. 94 Many assignments needed to be carried out in the very near future . Those assignments can be described largely in the categories: Technical and Practical. Technically, the theme group and the style list in the inventory form need more research about Korean modern history and modern architecture to be more comprehensive and reasonable. Also the criteria and the scale of values in the evaluation form need more study on their objectiveness and flexibility to avoid a certain subjective decision. Furthermore to make data processing available in a database system, dBASE Ill Plus, Dataease, or some other database program would have to be selected and prepared. Beyond technical problems there are practical questions: Are there structural systems in national and local governments in Seoul, Korea which encourage or sponsor the undertaking of official inventory and evaluation? Currently there are no systems such as the prominent U.S. examples which enable comprehensive surveys of buildings. It Is above all one of the urgent assignments to produce a convincing atmosphere which would admit the necessity of an Inventory and evaluation of the existing resources in preserving historic buildings. Bibliography Clark, Rosaline. Oregon Style : Architecture from 1840 to the 1950s. Portland, Oregon : Professional Book Center, Inc. 1983 Historic American Building Survey. HASS catalogue. Washington D.C. : U.S. Government Press. 1941. Kalman, Harold. "An Evaluation System for Architectural Survey." Association of Preservation Technology vol.a no.3 ( 1976) : 3-27 Klein, Marilyn w. Clues to American Architecture, Washington and Philadelphia : Starrhill Press, 1986. McKee, Harley J., comp. Recording Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C. : U.S. National Park Service, 1970. Pevsner, Nicholas. An Outline of European Architecture. 7th ed. Norwich, Great Britain : Penguin Books, 1970. Poppeliers, John C., S. Allen Chamber, Jr. and Nancy B. Schwartz. What style is it? A Gujde to American Architecture. Washington D.C. : Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1983 95 Shellenbarger, Michael, and Kimberly K. Larkin. Ellis Lawrence Building Survey. 1989. Copies available in the Architecture and Allied Arts Library, University of Oregon, Eugene, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon. Society of Architectural Historian's Preservation Committee. "First Annual Workshop on Survey and Registration ." Society of Architectural Historians Newsletter vol.29 no.4 ( Aug. 1985):7 State of California, Dept. of Parks and Recreation . Historic Resources Inventory. Sacramento, California : California state department of Parks and Recreation. 1975 U.S. Department of Interior. National Register of Historic Places. Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. By Anne Derry, H. Ward Jandle, Carol D. Shull, and Jan Thorman. Washington, D.C.: 1977 Whiffin , Marcus. American Architectural since 1780 : A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge : M.I.T. Press, 1969. 96 FIGURE I Modern Buildings Inventory Form Seoul, Korea *Common Name ( Other Name) _____________________ Location: Address ( Early Address )_ ____________________ Map# ( Tax Map#) ____________________ Owner ( Owner Address ) Current Function ------------------------ Date of Construct-ion- --------------------------------------------------- *HI st or Ic Name Theme and Histor-ic -Fun-cti-on- ---------------------- Associative Events or Persons- -------------------------------------------- *Architect _____________________________ Contractor Artists/ Cra-fts-ma-n _-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Design Year (Begin/End) ConstructI on Year (Begin-/En-d)-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__- Style ______________________________ Descriptions: Plan Type ---------Foundation Material- ------- Stories Basement Roof Form Wall Cons-tru-ctio-n --------- St r u ct u r aI Frame Primary window ty-pe- _-__-_-_-_-_-_ - Exterior Surface Material Decor at Ive Features ----------------------------------------- Landscape Features _____________________ Associative Features- -------------------- Setting __________________________ Other Descriptions- -------------------- *Current Status(Survived/Demolished)_ ________M oved(Y /N)_ ____ Alteration/Addition(Date) ________________________ Integrity: Exterior 1n t er io r --------------------------- Site --------------------------- Ov e r all Cond-itio-n(-Go-od-/ F-air-/ P-oor-) _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Inventory # Recorded by_ -_-_-_-_-_-------- Field # __________-_-_-_-D- at-e _-_-_-_--_-_-_-_ Researched by Date- ------- 97 Modern Buildings Inventory Form (2) Seoul, Korea (Photo/Site plan) *Common Name (Historic Name)_ ____________________ Recent Photo Negative# Taken by: Slide# Taken by: Historic Photo/ Other Graphic Source Source: Site Plan Inventory # Recorded by- --------------- Field#- Date __-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ - Researched by Date ____________ 98 FIGURE 2 Modern Buildings Evaluation Form Seoul, Korea Common Name(Historic Name) _____________________ *HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE score(40) Associative Value of Historic Events or Activities _(15) Associative Value of Historic Person _(15) Associative Value of Ideal, Institution or Political Entity _(10) total *ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE score(40) Distinction of Style _(10) Distinction of Architectural Details & Craftsmanship _(10) Distinction of Building type (original use) _(10) Distinction of Architectural Design _(10) total *INTEGRAL SIGNIFICANCE score(40) Exterior Integrity _(15) Interior Integrity _(15) Site Integrity _(10) total Total Score_ ____ (140) Ranking- ----- Statement of Significance- --------------------- Sources & Documents (Location)- -------------------- Publications- --------------------------- *Inventory#- --------------Field # ----------- Recorded by- ------------------Date- ------ Researched by Date- ------ 99 APPENDIX I Choices for Architectural Descriptions For the choices about each items of the Description In the Inventory forms, here lists those from Ellis Lawrence Building Survey Form done by Prof. Michael Shellenbarger of University of Oregon. PLAN TYPE & SHAPE The first field : plan as built square rectangular ( front long ) rectangular ( sides long ) • L • -shaped · u· -shaped • H" -shaped circular polygonal center space (atrium) pavilion ( projects ends) irregular cruciform apsidal apse and transept apse and narthex narthex and transept The second field : wings to the basic plan type, if any +front wing +side wing +front and side wings + wings on two sides + front and two side wings + rear wing + front and rear wings + rear and side wings + rear and two side wings + front, rear. side wings +front, rear, 2 side wings + irregular / diagonal wing + 2 irregular / diagonal wings + 3 Irregular / diagonal wings + parallel rear wing addition 100 FOUNDATION MATERIAL Material as initially used : large portion only concrete stone brick unknown ROOFFORM The first field : the shape of the roof as built low gable ( 6/12 max.) medium gable ( 10/12 max.) high gable (10/12 min.) gable with center gable gable with offset gable cross gable ( ·x• ridge ) hipped gable hipped cross gable bell cast gable( s) bellcast hipped gable low hip ( 6/12 max. ) medium hip ( 10/12 max.) high hip ( 10/12 min. ) truncated hip hipped with center gable bellcast hip gabled hip or gablet gambrel hipped gambrel bellcast gambrel bellcast hipped gambrel mansard front mansard ( 4 sides ) shed ( single pitch ) saltbox essentially flat sawtooth monitor dome pyramidal vaulted combination gable and hipped gable gable with 2 offset gables gable with 3 offset gables hipped gable with 2 offset hipped gables hipped gable with 3 offset hipped gables high X-hip with offset gable 101 hipped gables and gablets gambrel with mansard wings low hip with cross gables high gable and offset gables The second field : dormers or other additional description. with gabled dormer(s) with swept dormer(s) with hooded dormer(s) ( rounded top) with hipped dormer(s) with hipped gable dormer(s) with gablet dormer(s) with shed dormer(s) with bay dormer(s) with triangular dormer(s) with gambrel dormer(s) with mansard dormer(s) with inset shed dormers with pediment dormer(s) with combination dormer types with inset hooded dormers with center gable with offset gable with center hipped gable with offset hipped gable with conical tower roof with gable wing with dome(s) with hip-roof wing(s) The third field : roof material as built - most visible material wood shingles slate shingles ceramic tiles composition shingles bituminous builtup metal unknown WALL CONSTRUCTION brick (bearing) brick ( non-bearing) stone (bearing) stone ( non-bearing) nailed wood frame nailed wood frame with brick veneer 102 concrete concrete masonry unit concrete with masonry facing masonry bearing and non-bearing combination masonry and wood frame combination concrete and masonry unknown hollow clay tile STRUCTURAL FRAME The type of frame which supports the upper floors and roof. nailed wood frame heavy timber steel frame concrete frame masonry ( bearing) unknown steel and heavy timber concrete and steel PRIMARY WINDOW TYPE The first field : material wood steel aluminum metal The second field : primary window type 1 /1 double hung multi-pane double hung grouped 1 /1 double hung grouped multi-pane double hung single-pane casement paired single-pane casement casement + fixed sash single-sash hinged( hinges top or bottom) two-sash hinged grouped hinged sash vertical-pivotal sash horizontal-pivotal sash horizontal sliding fixed sash no window multi-pane casement paired multi-pane casement grouped multi-pane casement 103 fixed grouped multi-pane grouped diamond-pane casement unknown fixed multipane multi-pane double hung and casement multi-pane horizontal pivot multi-pane over i double-hung union jack grouped awning, casement, fixed The third field : special windows in addition to the primary type with special round with special slliptical with special polygonal with special half-round with special half-elliptical with special bay/ oriel with special Palladian with special gothic with special rounded top with special 1/ 4 round with special oriel, rounded with special union jack with special ornamental pattern with transoms with special hexagonal with miscellaneous others and grouped multi-pane casement EXTERIOR SURFACE MATERIAL wood bevel siding wood weatherboards ( rectangular horizontal boards ) wood shiplap wood drop siding wood horizontal board wood board and batten wood vertical board wood panel wood shingles stucco stucco with 'half timber' brick cast stone terracotta concrete cut stone rubble stone ceramic tile 104 slate shingles sheet metal stone veneer hollow clay tile vinyl siding asbestos shingles wire mesh 105 APPENDIX 2. Illustrations for Architectural Descrlptlos The following illustrations are quoted from the "Procedual Guide - Historic Resources Inventory" published by California State Department of Parks and Recreation in 1975. PLAN TYPE r- - ---.- - Cl L 1T U 1■ H • II. 1. ~UAR£ 2. RECTAN• 3. CENT!R 4. LSMA>E 5. T SllAP! G. U SHAPE 7. H SHAPE 8 . CROSS- 9 . IRFlEGVLAA 10•. POL VGON A L GU LA.A SPACE AXI AL 1•1 . CIRCUL AR 12. OTHE R STORIES . 1-£-'!:·-~rn a o -\ , ' ~ ~ -un00t• , J' .Ll. .a r8 .J:I:(~ Ia . 1-ro• • "t '. ,.j ~ -, - ~ - l!',l G."°'-"'DUvtt. , - I . UNKNOWN 2. 1 STORY 3. t~STORIES c. SP LIT LEVEL s. 1 FRONT 6 . 2 FAQ:lT 7 . 2STOA IES 2 REAR 1 AE/\M a fl A B .l.,cii ' 8 . 2½ STORIES 9. 3STOR IES 10 . 3½ STORIES 11. 4 STOFUES 12. 5 OR MORE 11J. tHAEGULAO U . OTH ER I BASEMENT - I CJ .9. 1 ! 1. NONE 2, UNKNOWN 3. 8A..~E~ENT 4. GHOIJUO LEVEL OA~EMENT ~ OTI IF.ll 7 Pnesu,r IUNOC li !:.LEV>'\ TC:O MAIPI I I FLOUHI I i 106 ROOF PARTS _.,.,--- l~ f~ _.,.,---1 :~::~::R GABLE end of buildint OARGEOOAR EAVES - h~rizontI edg< of roof KOrated or uwn bo ..........._ . otuchod to . OTHE R WA LL -- ---------- EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL - BRICK, TILE, OR COMPOSITION Mu1r;o1e Cho;cc ! 7 1 . r,or~e 2 . UNKNOWN 3. COMPOSITION IASPHAL Tl 4 . PLASTER on 5 . l\~B E!.TOS 6. TILE 7. 80 lCK SHIP.lGLE OR S►lEET Ur~r.1.1JOES STUCCO ~ID l!lfi TARP APER~ IMlrATIQt, o a1CIC PAP► R I 109 EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL - -WOOD Mu/t;pl• Choir, rrrro ~ ~ ~ t3 f§3 ~ ID] 1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 3. ROUGH LOG I, 4. StiAPED 5 . HALF -TIMOEI 6. SMOOTH, FLUSH 80AAOS OR 7 . SH IPLAP 8 . VERT ICAL !SMOOT H ) LOG IWOOO & PL.-,,JKS BOARD ANO PLASTER I BATTEN €9 ~ []JJ !JIJ)i lffffJi 9. OVERLAP- 10. STICK 11 . PANEL OR 12. P\.AIN 13. PATTERNEC 1.C. PATTERNED H5. OTHER PING BOARDS STYLE PLYWOOO SHINGLI! SHINGLE (FISH SHINGLE (CLAPBOARDS, SCALE I {OTHER DESIGN) ETC.I EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL - STONE Multipl• Choi<» (Do nor include smell.,_ of stono used in po,chn, urorior chimney,, etc.I 1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 3. FIELDSTONE 4. COBBLE 5. SHALE OR 6. RUBBLE !IRREGULAR ROCK 7. CUT STONE (MAY BE SMOOTH OR ROUGH (LARGE I RREG· !SMOOTH SLATE BROKEN TO FIT ROUGHLY) SURFACE - OON"T CONFUSE WITH BR ICK) ULAR ROCKS) AOUNOCO ROCKS FROM STREAM BEOSI 8. COMPOSITIO:~ 9 . CHIER STONE !MANU- FACTURED EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL -CONCRETE Multipl•choict1 ~ rr17 ~ lJl---] 1. NONE 2 UNKNOWN 3. POURED (SMOOTH OR WITH 4. PLAIN BLOCK 5 . SIMULATED '"i. PR ECAST PANEL (PLA IN OR 7. OTHER EXPOSED PEBBLES) STONE BLOCK SH APEOI !CAST STONE I EXTERIOR \VALL MATERIAL - METAL OR GLASS Multipl• Choico ~ [Il § fM I 1 f,,,.;J· 1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 3. METAL SHEET IC-ORRUGATEO, .1. METAL 5 . ALUMINUM 6. CAST IRON -7. GLASS 8 . GLASS WAl.L 9. OTHER RIBBED OR FLA.Tl PANEL IFRAM • SID ING BLOCKS ING VISIBLE I 110 WINDOW PARTS Structural opening Ul1pc De1a1I sur round ing struc tu r.>I opening lll::=~="1-ir S.u h (Frame work which holds glass pane~) (hor izontal ~dge 1t the base ol the window) WINDOWS - OPENING MOVEMENT 1. NONE 2 UNKNOWN J . OOU8LE 4. CASEMENT 5. HINGED AT 6. PIVOTED 7 . HO RIZONl'AL 8 . F IX ED IOOES 9 . OTH E R HUNG (SLIDES (OPE NS OUT· TOPOR SLI C ING NOT OPENI UPANOOOWNI ,W..A,R..D, FROM BOTTOM 1 WINDOWS - DIVISION Th is section is concerned wi th lh"J division of the window into sashes. Do no t be concerned with window movement or opening - the ushes m-v or may not be move.:.ble. DD DD 1. NONE 2 UNKNOWN 3. □ONE SASH 4 _. 2 SASH IS. 2 SASH & 7. '2 SASH DIVIDED VER T ICAL LY 8 . '2 SASH OtVI OEO VERTICAL LY TRANSOM SEPARATED av AN UPRIGHT BAR [Il] 9. 3 OR MORE SASHES DIVIDED 10. ONE OR MORE SASHES WITH 11 . OTHER VERTI CA LLY (WITH OR WITHOUT GLASS SIOEPANELS UP RIGHT OIV101NG BA RS) 111 SPEC IAL WINDOW SHAPES - I Multipl• Choic, The illum1tions o utli ne the shape: of ,my ,pecia l or ornamental wi ndows. They may be locJ ted : -------- -·- ---·· -- ------ · - - ~v.whcrconthch11il<,i_n'L__ _ - ----· -- · - - ··- - · · -· _ ·- r··· ____ . _ -· ... 0 0 Cl O o~ I I -- - 0 1. NON'E 2. UN:OA 8 . OTHEn I • O TH ER TAIM TRIM FL I\T COLUMNS DECORATED AT TAC HED TO TR IM WALL SU RF AC E I I ' WINDOWS - DETAIL AT BOTTOM OF STRUCTURAL OPENING (SILLS) u --· ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. r"ONE 2 . U~!KNOWN J. SLI PSILL 4. LUGSI LL s. cEC:0RATe0- -----Ii. 01:COR A TEr> 7. COr!T ll'loUOUS t 3 O THER {E VEN WITH !E XTENDS f1 ~ SU PSILL LlHjS I LL YONO SICES SILL I $!DES OF O?ENING OF Ol'EM NGI I I DOOR PARTS ANSOM rved or rect•ngulu, STRUCTURAL OPENI NG DOO RWAY DOOR PANEL MAIN DOOR LOCATION 1 .L. oca te the m3in doc,rwa'/ . Note l hUI item s J-5 dc.ll ontv w 11h hu11 Lllr'KJ 5 thJI i .,_ ... .in..t'< gabluruL ______ ------. -- - - - -·· · - ----- - ·1 ---- ---- --- - - - 1 I ~ (8 ~ G;O 6CJ @ ' ~.... 1. NONE 2. UNKNO WN J,,.. MAIN DOOR 4. MAIN DOOR 5. MORE THAN 6. CENTER 7 . DOO R OFF 8 . MO RE Tti AN -i 9 . il.10R E fH AN O NE f.1.\IN CENTER OFF CE NTER ON E DOO R. DOOR CE NTER ONE DOO R SUI LOING FAC E WIT H DOO i\ 1 GABLE ENO GABLE END GA BLE EN D W.<\V ISI l '.UV FACE ON OIFHPI ENT STRE ETSt 61. 10. CORNER 11. OTHE R OOOAWA V(S) 113 MAIN DOORWAY - SIDE PANELS This item desc:ribcs the 'o\.Ood (hlirnJ) er glau p,1neh wh ich a,e adjacen 1 t,J 1he door W• lnin the uructura l or,cn111g; . Choose the illustration wh ich most clo~ely resembles the ude p.u1cls of the buitdino's mai n doorway. [[]] DD 0 .. 1. NONE '/ . UNKNOWN 3. BLIND (NO 4 . SOME OR All 5. PANEL ON ONE St OE ONLY. G. OTHER GlASS) SIDE PAt,ELS EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT G LASS HAVE GLASS MAIN DOORWAY - TRANSOM PANELS A transom is Jn opening over the door. usually for vent il.1 tion. Ir m,1y be a blind (no glai;) panel or may have g13'1is- R l~l ~I I ~~ I I' 1. t~O NE 1. UtJKNQ\VN 3. SLln0(N0 ~A~1d8i~!~Rr:.c- ;~ -1v~~~i~o~'J~:~"'ttC~ 6 . FA NLIGH! W ITH G LA":,5 Q;; 7. OTHER GLASS IGHT BLIND (t~U Gt.ASS! (MAY BE PIECE 0~ Gt.ASS j BARS SINGLE OR OIVIOEO GY SPOKES/ I 1 1. NONE 2. UNK NOWN 3. PLAIN 4. PLAIN, 5. PLAIN 6. SINGLE 7. nvo PANEL 8 . THREE DIVIDED DIVIDED DIAG· PA.NEL PANE L VE RTI CA LLY ONAL L Y [IJ '9 . FOUR PANEL 10. FI VE PANEL 11. SI)( OR 12. LOWER WOOD PANELS ANO 13. COOR WITH GLAS$ CV.A L OR I 14. DOO R WITH t 15. OECOt1AT EO MORE PANELS AECTANGULAn GLASS ABOVE CIRCLE j FAN ?AN H j DOOR I B ■ II 16. DUTCH 17. FRENCH 18. REVOLVING DOOR 19. lnON COOR 20. OTHER DOOR DOOR WITH OR W/OUT PANELS - ---- ---- --- -- MAIN DOOR - STRUCTURAL OPENING SHAPE De,,!~ with tht ~hapc Qf the open ing i:i the wJII in which the door i$ placed. t,iay c:·:m ta in 1•1orc thin one Coor. nn -n n 1n lr')1(\ln - -1-- ----~. ----- ----/----'-1'10- . ---1. NONE 2. I SNKNQWr~ 3. FLAT -1 . FLAT V'HTH ~- SEGMENTAL G. SE MI • 7 SEMI - cJ . 4CE~TER 9 2-C ENTEA PA.RA80L IC AOUND ELL IPTICA L CIRCULAA OGEE POINTED I CO RNEAS 1 ! 11 . TRIANGU• 12. OTl1EA lA• 114 MAIN DOOR · · SURROUNDING DETAIL OF TOP OF STRUCTURAL OPENING There a,e many var iations - s.elect the one which is most similar to the main door of the build ing. n ~ ijl ~ n Tn, 1TT Ti A Hnl 1. uo:,1£ 2. U'"K:-10\VN 3. PLAIN 4. VICTORIAN 5. MOLOE O G. CONTINUOUS 7 . PLAIN 8. DECORATED 9 . SHAPED 10. LABEL MOLDING DECORA TE D TRIM TRIM ABOVE ... INTEL LINTEL LINTEL TR IM (MANY VAR IA TI ONS) rm, ~ ~ i ~ ~ I n rn 11 . FLAT WI TH 12. FLAT Ofl iJ. FLAT OR AR':'"IEO WITH 114. F LAT OR ARCHED WITH 15 FLAT ')'l As::tCH=O WITH 7 BRICKS OR ARc~;e O WITH MOIA TING BRICKS OR STO ~JFS ALTERNATING RADIATI NG !" TEPP:;D R;,C", 1 .\T lt,;G SRICKS I ~~O:ci"tO\~~H I~ 0 ~~:~~,1~qA:H STONES SET P.A::.t ATI NG ANO CENTER KE YSl ~N!: I ORICKS OR STONES ~rt STON~5 I TOI\,! I TR ,M WITH CEr. VERTICALLY BR l~ICS OA I TEI, Ki:"l' ~ TC"ii: STO'\JES I i I I 1nt$ri9l~~ ~ ~ ! I' I I I I 18 . SHE L F t9. TA IANGU• 20. SEGMENTAL 21. DOUBLE 22 . BR OKEN 23. HOOD , WITH OA WITHOUT 24. CUAVED HOOD , Wii'H OR 125. QTH;a LAA PEOI • PE DIMENT CU RVED PEDIMENT BRACKETS WITHOUT BR ACK ETS -I MENT PEQl).~ENT ~ -M-.A,-,I::N-:- ,D::-O::--O:-:R:- --S-UR-R-O-UN-D-ING- D-E-TA-IL- O-F. S,ID,E.S -OF- S-TR-U-CT-U-RA-L -OP-E-NI-NG- --------------------------- 11. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 3. PLAIN 4 . MOLDED S. TILED 8. QUOINS 7. ROUND OR FLAT COLUMNS 8. OTI-IER 9 . QTMEFI TRIM TRIM ATTf,CHEO TO WALL SURFACE DECOR A TEO I TRIM MAIN DOOR - DOORWAY TYPE I( rom c sur ace o t e wa . I 1 I I Iii rrni mr1~ I I1TI 1I Fmi. . l a -~ !ifill _hti mID r-• :Ii Ii n., ...i. , ~O~E---1 ·i. ·~--urJ¥.P\:C't'IN 3. PLt\lN (F LUSH OR ne CE!:SEO • OEtOll AT(D(FI.IJ:'.iHWITH 1~1 . FI.ATCOL· 6 . ► L ,\ !' COL 7 i'oi.::: o ·~ ll(JU,:tJ I I WITH WALL) VIALL 011 sccessrn1 u, .. ,.s ATTACH· , uM:;s .,TTACH cos,"·~; ! co,u·.:~; I I E.Ut=t l.Y.;HWITII EO . llf.c.ES~EO AIT;,O-tF.D j ATTAC t1t: '.l . I WALL BAC.K Ffl{,I,~ I ► Ll.:::;II WITII j ne c £~(09.>.C l( 1 : OUTSIOL \'IAI_L \.IALL I :.;~~~.' OUTS JOE I ; I '3. OTHER ___ _ ___j 115 DECORATIVE FEATURES-Examples ' SPECIAL WINDOW TYPES·· Multipl• Choice M•v be located anywhere on the build ing. <$ ♦ 0 1 0 C ffl 1. NQP,IE 2. l'NKNOWN 3. OUATREFOILAVAAIATIONS • . OUATREFOIL 5 . BULLS EVE II, '"'"'""~ " '""""~ > &W'""' ..... ,;;;;:- IST ARI !CO LOR ED SQUARES & RECTA:--4 - PA nE NT • STAINED GL-'SS G US) IF.\'.j TEl Ui:S IGNS , CFTEN F1,., ....,c ,.._ -·-----------!------------, 8 . STAINED GL ASS SCENE 9 . LEADED (;LASS , LATTICE : I'), ROSE 11. OTHER tPERSON.S , BIROS, SHIPS , (DIAMOND SHAPED PANES , \'JINOOW I ROUND LANDSCAPE , ETC,) SEPARATED DY LEAD STR IPS) I- ;~~!tCH VIIN- OR NAM ENT AT IO N Mu/tip/~ Choic• De-scribes ornamental dttailing of the exterior - may be s:iw". CJt\ ed. turned or cas t ' ~ 1$f ~ ~~1 ~;..-.... <'.".c-s.-2.~ 1. NONE 2. ,UNKNO WN J . DECORAT IVE PATTERNS 4. SPEC*IAL PATTERNS OF 5. SPINDLE At\10 SPOOL 6 . OECOR.\T IV E PA~ ELS , SCVAR!: . ATTACHEO TO SURFACE FLOWERS ANO LEAVES T~IANGULAR OFt R.;)U~O 0'\ol .-..- :.1. L~ t, pc,qC M!:S ~ ~ 'I ~, +'ff:, Ji. I I 7. STON!: OA 8. DECORATIVE BRICK, TILE OR 9. URNS OR 10. OTHER PANEL WITH TERRACOTTA OTHER II DATE O R SCULPTURED INS CRIPTION ORNAMENTS MAIN PORCH M.>·1 cover on, or more storiN ,n hei!tit, ~ , A DI 1. NONE 2. UUK NOWN 3. STOOP -4 . RECF. SSEO INTO WA LL OR 5 . OPEN PORCH WI TM :iQ UARE IN TOCORNE n P0!.1S on ROUND COLUMN.} 8. OPEN VERANDA (E Y.TENOS 9. CLOSED 10. GUYED " · MARQUEE on OTHER PO RCH 12. OTHER ACROSS F AONT . SOMETIMES VERANDA {SUPPORTED WITHOUT SUPPORTS AROUND SIDES BY CABLES FROM ABOVE) 116 WALL DESIGN AND DETAIL Mu /tipla Oioi~ Oesi9"1 o f major pans of the bu ilding's w1ll1. Sectio ns 3.5 show efem.,lt s th11 cover more th~n one story , or m ay be re-;:- ~ated from floor to f loor as in a multi-storied build in".). 1. NONE 2 . UNKNOWN 11 . OTHERS I ADD ITIONAL BU ILOI NG FEATURES Mult;pf• 0,oico Select a11y additional te.:,tures found on the building. 1, NONE i 2. UNKNOWN 3 f. :-{TEillOR 4 . TOWER OR TURR ET s. s.,u~ e on G. E XTEA I~?. •.1~::;1v e \'I II LL 7 . .\OOI TIONAL ROW OF A.:c.,;e:; i 8. 8ALCOr"'y C!·'!twiN EY ~T'..: C:P LE ~UPPORTS vn !3LJrTRES5. OR COLUf..4NS NOT DESCH IBEU I l,G A!':ST WA LL (M~STL V V/ITH USUA LLY Sfi lCK , STON E. OR E1'RLIER i t:!-IURCHES} CONCR ETE -:, ,0~· ·l . :: ...: 0.. 1I...: 9 . ADDITIONA L 10. GARAGE AS PART OF TH E 12. ROUNDED BUILDING CORNER~ 13. SHUTTERS (WOOD OR IRON PO RCH BUI LO ING COVERS THAT CLOSE ACROSS WINOOINS CH DOORS) 14. STATUES ON T HE BUILOINQ 115. OECORATE C 16 . OT HE R PEDIMENT !ABOVE WINOCWS OAON ROOFI I -ROO FT R-IM~-· SPECIALF E'AT,:;U,;R:;;E,"S-;:M~ul::::,L-;-:~-;;;Ch~~:::-::~7.-::o-t-,.-m-an-y-:Ac,:,-,:-, :"°':-.-,~t-: :-:--~1tu_:r,_i-,-,-;-c,h~-~:re:fo_u_n.d.,~.on~or-$,,h-•-,o~-o,f- -- --1-~-r-~-_-.- 1 0 ~E0 ~ UN:< ,·:owN J . CUPOLA 4 \VIOOW 'S ' 5 F INIAt. rG CRESTING 7 7 P( N OANT 8 MONUh-'ENTAlPEO;::;e-;:;. gqo~·-· IO? EN OR WALK ' IMETAt. OR I !USUA L.L Y OVER MAIN I FLACPO t.E CLOSED : w o oo1 . erHRAt~CEI J ::,i~o~;~~ ! ! ~!-E,_R-+1•-,-l-OT_H_E_R_ _ NOT WAI.LI I ' l 117 SETTING PLACEMENT WITH OTHER BUILDINGS I•...., lrom d;=•tv above) Ill[] □ [II 111111111111111111m11111111 IC]m D I 1. BUILD ING 2. ONE S10€ 1 ON ENO OF A ROW OF BUil[). 4. BETWEEN OrHER BUILOINGS 6 . WITHIN A GROUP OR COMPLEX 6. OTHER ST ANOS ALONE AGAINST INGS (OF SAME OR Dl~FERENT IN A ROW SUAROUNOEO OR ATTACHED ON OUILOINQ 5TYLESt SEVERAL SIDES IEXAMPLI! : • T RY 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY 119 Books and Articles Abe, Kimimasa. Early Western Architecture in Japan. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 13 (2), 1987: 13-18. Ann, Jae-rak. "On the Preservation of Western Style Archi- tecture in Korea." Konggan (Space) 207 (September 1984): 91-95. (In Korean) Cady, Janet A., ed. Historic Preservation in the People's Republic of China: Observations of the American Urban Planning and Historic Preservation Study Team. Washing- ton, D.C.: National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, 1982. Crosby, Theo. The Necessary Monument: Its Future in the Civilized City. Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, 1970. Everhart, William C. The National Park Service. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983. Fawcett, Jane, ed. The Future of the Past. New York: Watson-Guptill, 1976. Fitch, James Marston. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982. Foresta, Ronald A. America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1985. Glenn, Marsha. Historic Preservation: A Handbook for Architecture Students. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Historic Resources, American Institute of Architects, 1974. Hosmer, Charles B., Jr. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-1949, 2 vols. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1981. Ise, John. Our National Park Policv: A Critical History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961. Kang, Man-kil. The Contemporary Historv of Korea. Seoul, Korea: Changjak kwa Bipyung, 1984. (In Korean) 120 The Modern Historv of Korea. Seoul, Korea: Changjak kwa Bipyung, 1984. (In Korean) Kass, Stephen L., Juditha! M. LaBelle, and David A. Hansell. Rehabilitating Older and Historic Buildings: Law, Taxa- tion, Strategies. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985. Keller, Ellen L., and Bernard D. Reams, Jr. Historic Preservation Law: An Annotated Bibliography. Washing- ton, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1976. Kim, Chung-dong. "A Study on the Modern Architecture of Seoul." The Journal of the Korean Institute of Regis- tered Architects 219-239 (May 1988-February 1989): series. (In Korean) "A Study on the Western Architect's Role in the Modern Architecture of Seoul." The Journal of the Archi- tectural Institute of Korea 24 (August 1989): 75-89. (In Korean) Kim, Moo-un. "Urban Renewal and Building Preservation: Whashin Department Store." Konggan (Space) 223 (Janu- ary/February 1986): 108-109. (In Korean) Kim, Soon-il. "Looking for the Modern Architecture." Ggumim (Total Design) 69 (December 1987): 65-69. Korean Ministry of Culture and Information, Cultural Assets Management Bureau. Laws Regarding Cultural Property. Seoul, Korea: Samjung Press, 1985. (In Korean) Lee, Ronald F. Family Tree of the National Park System. Philadelphia: Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1972. Lee, Sung-soo. "A Traditional Building Report Uncovered 100 years Later." Ggumim (Total Design) 49 (August 1984): 35-37. ( In Korean) Morris, Jan. Stones of Empire. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1983. Morrison, Jacob H. Historic Preservation Law. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1965. Mulloy, Elizabeth D. The History of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C.: The Preserva- tion Press, 1976. 121 Murtagh, William J. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. Pittstown, N.J.: The Main Street Press, 1988. Muramatsu, Teijiro, ed. Nihon kindai kenchiku shi saiko (History of Japanese Modern Architecture). Tokyo: Shin Kenchiku Sha, 1952 . National Park Service. Local Preservation: Historic Pres- ervation and Historic Properties. Washington, D.C.: Interagency Resources Division, n.d. • Local Preservation: Questions and Answers About the SHPO. Washington, D.C.: Interagency Resources Division, 1987. Local Preservation: What Are the Historic Pres- ervation Tax Incentives? Washington, D.C.: Interagency Resources Division, 1987. Local Preservation: What Are the National Regis- ter Criteria? Washington, D.C.: Interagency Resources Division, 1987. Local Preservation: What Is Section 106 Review? Washington, D.C.: Interagency Resources Division, 1987. Local Preservation: What Is the National His- toric Preservation Act? Washington, D.C.: Interagency Resources Division, 1987. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Historic Preser- vation Today. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1963. "The National Park Service As Standard Setter." H.istoric Preservation Year Book. Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press. Nilsson, Sten. European Architecture in India, 1750-1850. New York: Taplinger, 1969. Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. Fact Sheet: Special Assessment of Historic Property. Salem: Department of Transportation, Parks and Recreation Division, n.d. (2253.DOC H#2) 122 How to Prepare Nominations to the National Regis- ter of Historic Places: A Condensed Technical Guide for Oregon Property Owners (Draft). Salem: Department of Transportation, Parks and Recreation Division, 1988. Pevsner, Nicholas. A History of Building Types. London: Thames & Hudson, 1976. Reprint. 1984. Rieth, Adolf. Monuments of the Victims of Tyranny. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969. Rothman, Hal. Preserving Different Pasts. Champaign- • Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989 . Seoul, The City of. Cultural Property Status. Seoul, Korea: Author, 1989. (In Korean) Stewart, David B. The Making of Japanese Modern Architec- ture, 1868 to the Present. Tokyo: Kodansha Inter- national, 1987. Stipe, Robert E., and Antoinette J. Lee, eds. The American Mosaic: Preserving a Nation's Heritage. Washington, D.C.: US/ICOMOS, 1987. Su, Gin-Djih. Chinese Architecture: Past and Contemporary. Hong Kong: The Sin Poh Amalgamated, 1964. Takahash, Koichiro, ed. Nihon kindai shi ran (Japanese Modern History). Translated by Tae-suk Cha and Yi-jin Kim. Seoul, Korea: Chishik Sanup, 1981. Thurber, Pamela, ed. Preservation Policv Research--Contro- versies in Historic Preservation: Understanding the Preservation Movement Today. Washington, D.C.: The National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1983. U.S. Conference of Mayors, Albert Rains, Chair. With Heritage So Rich. New York: Random House, 1966. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Preservation: Tax Incentives for Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1987. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983. 123 Youn, Il-joo. Korean Modern Architecture. Seoul, Korea: Kimundang, 1988. (In Korean) Youn, In-suk. "Modern Architecture of East Asia." GGUMIM (Total Design) 79 (August 1989): 50-89. (In Korean) Newspapers (In Korean) Chosun Ilbo (Seoul), 12 October 1989. Dong-A Ilbo (Seoul), 10 October 1989; 12 October 1989. Kyunghyang Shinmun (Seoul), 31 July 1987. Nae-oe Kyungje (Seoul), 17 November 1898. Weekly MaeKyung (Seoul), 27 August 1987.