Rise and Fall of the Microdistrict in Pyongyang, North Korea
Dongwoo Yim[1]
Abstract
Recent residential developments in Pyongyang show a pattern distinguished from previous eras in the Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il periods. Since Kim Jong Un’s rise to power, major developments, such as the Mirae Scientist Street and Ryomyong Street developments, resemble real estate developments in other capitalist cities. Instead of repeating the same designs, they provide unique designs in each building, and dedicate more to commercial spaces and residential units, while reducing supporting amenities such as daycares, schools and civic amenities that are not profitable in the market. With signs of the transformation of Pyongyang, this paper addresses how residential developments have been occurring since the reconstruction of the city in relationship to socialist microdistricts, and how recent developments challenge the idea of the socialist microdistrict.
(Keywords: Pyongyang; microdistrict; housing; development; socialist)
Introduction
Aside from all other political or military changes, there are a few signs that indicate a transformation of Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. Since the new regime under Kim Jong Un began in 2011, a number of developments have happened in the city. Munsoo Street, built in 2012, Mirae Scientist Street, built in 2015, and Ryomyong Street, built in 2017, are key signs that show a shift of the residential development strategy from the socialist microdistrict to capitalist real estate development.
The shift is not surprising at all considering increasing numbers of donju/돈주인 in the city and other precedents in post-socialist cities in the 1990s. As people with money emerged, there were new demands in the housing market that departed from previous housing models in the socialist period. Not only had the quality of housing gotten better but also the locations and types of housing development had become different. Luxurious condos, as part of redevelopment plans, emerged in city centers, while single-family houses or gated communities for a new rich class arose on the outskirts of cities.
Learning from post-socialist cities, which already have gone through the massive transition from socialist society to a market-oriented one, recent changes in Pyongyang can be understood as the beginning of a larger wave that is about to come. Although the regime officially says recent developments are for the public, there is evidence that these new apartments are sold to donju.[2] Even if they were not sold to donju, they still show the tendencies of real estate development in a post-socialist city in the way that they are located in prime real estate in the city and designed uniquely rather than homogeneously, which used to be an important value in socialist cities where little differentiation between houses was allowed.
Despite its recent transitions towards a market economy, Pyongyang was built based on the ideas of socialist urban planning, and along with these ideas, the microdistrict is applied as part of the residential development plan of the city.
History of Pyongyang
Pre-socialist Period
The history of Pyongyang starts in the fifth century BCE, when it was first formed as capital city Koguryo (BCE 668-37) in 427. Like many other cities on the Korean peninsula then, in the sixth century, Pyongyang constructed walls to define the city boundary, which is called Pyongyangsong, which could be traced until the early twentieth century. The city wall consisted of four different areas: Naesong (inner wall), Oesong (outer wall), Puksong (North wall), and Chungsong (middle wall). These four areas are designated, but loosely, by use. The royal palace was in the Naesong, and the Puksong functioned as a watchtower, as it was formed on a hilly area. Most of the public lived in Oesong, while a higher class lived in Chungsong, which was in-between Oesong and Naesong. It was during the Koryo Dynasty (918-1392) when Pyongyang flourished both economically and culturally. During that time, Pyongyang was called Sogyong, which means “Western Capital,” along with Seoul, Kaesong, and Kyungju. These four capitals once used to be capital cities on the Korean peninsula. Kaesong was the capital in the Koryo Dynasty, Kyungju was the capital in the earlier Shilla Dynasty (57 BC-935 AD), and Seoul has been the capital since the Choson Dynasty (1392-1897). Pyongyang has been the capital of North Korea since 1948. Although Kaesong as still the main capital, Pyongyang, as the western capital, took on important roles on the peninsula economically and culturally.[3]
Pyongyang became the second largest city on the Korean peninsula during the Choson Dynasty. When Pyongyang opened its port for foreign trade for the first time in 1897, the population grew radically. After the opening of the port, many international businesses emerged, as did Christian missionaries from the West, which led to the Pyongyang revival movement in 1907. During the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945), the population grew from forty thousand to nearly three hundred thousand. It was during the colonial period that the city started to expand to the other side of the Taedong River, called East Pyongyang. It was also during the colonial period that the city started to implement the manufacturing and chemical industries. Pyongyang was strategically used as a city for military logistics during the period when Japan prepared for war against China and other East Asian countries. As part of the expansion plan, imperial Japan applied a master plan to develop the East Pyongyang area for Japanese residences. The master plan in the 1930s expected the city to grow to 500,000 in population with an area of one hundred ten square kilometers in twenty years.[4] Although this plan was not fully realized, it did become, especially for the size and boundary of the city, the basic background of north Korea’s reconstruction plan in the 1950s.
Socialist Pyongyang
The Korean War (1950-1953) totally wiped out structures of the city. After more than a thousand episodes of bombing, hardly any structure from Pyongyangsong or the Japanese colonial period remained. More than sixty thousand houses, one thousand five hundred stores, two hundred cultural facilities, and three hundred industrial buildings were demolished. Even though this might have been a tragedy for the Korean peninsula, it was also a great chance for North Korea to construct a city based on its ideology of socialism.
Unlike many other socialist cities that had to apply the ideas of a socialist city in existing city structures, Pyongyang and other North Korean cities had a unique opportunity to construct socialist cities on an ad-hoc condition. It was not just an ideological victory that the city removed traces of imperialism but also a realistic chance to start over for a city that had suffered from bad sanitation and living conditions before the war.[5]
Therefore, Kim Il Sung, the first leader of the nation, requested that Kim Jeong-Hui, an architect who was studying in Moscow, draft a reconstruction plan for Pyongyang, even before the war ended. To Kim’s mind, the city had to be the face of the nation that would showcase victory in the war and an ideal socialist city[6]. The first reconstruction plan that Kim Jeong-Hui drew up was not much different from the master plan that the Japanese had had for the city in the 1930s. However, a couple of years later, towards the end of the war, a new master plan was introduced, and it implied a couple of important socialist urban planning aspects in the plan, such as ideas on limiting expansion of the city and applying urban squares as centers for each district development.[7]
The master plan suggested several satellite districts, and parks and landscapes were introduced between districts. They functioned as buffer zones to prevent extreme expansion of each district. It was to limit the city to a certain size – one million in population as planned – as socialist cities objected to becoming mega-cities that only maximized the discrepancies with rural areas. These aspects shown in the later master plan, such as emphasizing parks, symbolic spaces, and spatial equality through zoning, are apparent features of a socialist city. As James H. Bater summarized, there are ten things that can show the character of a socialist city: 1. the limited size of a city; 2. state-controlled housing 3. planned residential areas; 4. equality in urban spaces; 5. minimized commuting distances; 6. control of land use; 7. a reasonable public transportation system; 8. enough green space; 9. urban planning as part of state development; and 10. A symbolic and centralized city.[8] These can be understood as socialists’ efforts to manage urban problems in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that were mainly caused by rapid industrialization and urbanization.
The time from the end of the war until the mid-1960s is considered as the reconstruction period of the city. In this period, with the help of the socialist bloc, including the Soviet Union, GDR, and China, massive reconstruction happened throughout the whole country. Pyongyang received aid from many socialist countries, while Hamhung received aid mainly from the GDR and Chongjin got aid from Czechoslovakia. In this period, Pyongyang followed the master plan well. It reconstructed the city center, which later became Kim Il Sung Square, based on the master plan, and developed East Pyongyang, on the east side of the Taedong River, from the square where the Juche Tower is currently, according to the plan. These two areas together are considered as a central area in the master plan.[9] Although later development of the city in the late 1970s did not really follow the master plan well but rather followed strategic plans that were developed every several years, the urban structure of Pyongyang still can be understood based on the master plan.[10]
The Microdistrict
Socialist City and the Microdistrict
The microdistrict, also called a microraion (or mikrorajon) in Russian, is a socialist urban planning concept of a residential community that can sustain itself by providing not only residential units but also other supporting amenities such as daycares, schools, stores, civic amenities, parks, and so on. As socialism arose with an idea of providing better living environments for working-class people, the residential development model was a crucial element for a socialist city to apply. The idea was first introduced in the 1930s in Russia, but it was not until the end of World War II that the idea spread out to other socialist countries, including North Korea.
The Socialist model of urban development was itself developed in light of the crises in urban areas following the period of the industrial revolution in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Socialist ideologies focused on reducing the gap between urban and rural life and working experience, which socialists thought the most crucial issue when it came to urbanization. Therefore the main goal of socialist urban planning was to limit the size of city and distribute production facilities throughout cities and territories.[11] Socialist urban planners borrowed ideas from Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Movement, which was introduced in 1898 as an alternative model for the development of urban areas that controlled the expansion of cities through the inclusion of parklands and public amenities, limiting the size of the city and attempting to mitigate the differences between urban and rural. For instance, the Moscow master plan of 1935, which was the first master plan in which socialist urban planners applied their ideas and ideology on the fabric of a major city, showed how the city could expand radially while keeping a network of parklands that functioned as buffer zone between developments.[12] As part of efforts to reduce and mediate the gap in incomes, amenity and life and work experience between urban and rural, socialist cities also controlled population and restricted migration between cities.
At the same time as wider urban development, the problems of industrial factories and facilities was also a key issue for socialist planners to consider. As working-class people were the main supporters and target of socialist ideologies, it was important for planners to optimize factory location. Ideas like “Linear City” by Nicolay A. Milutin or “Cite Industrielle” by Tony Garnier reveal that a close relationship between factories and housing deeply influenced socialist urban planning. Both these concepts demonstrate how a new socialist city could provide a better living environment than previous industrial cities, while keeping factories within the city, and as socialists these planners thought that working-class people should be main citizens of it. These ideas were applied very strongly in the planning and construction of socialist cities. For instance, Ivan Leonidov’s competition proposal for the Town of Magnitogorsk could be developed along with its areas for residential settlement.[13] As a disurbanist, who argued that settled should be dispersed across the whole Soviet Union to abolish differences between urban and rural, Leonidov introduced this radical linear city idea as part of socialist strategy for urban planning. However, the Linear City Model, including Leonidov’s idea, was criticized for its lack of urbanity and ineffectiveness.
Nonetheless, socialist ideas of both locating the production function in city and developing commune were pursued consistently, and borrowing the concept of a superblock from the Anglo-Saxon world,[14] planners inspired by these ideologies developed the microdistrict as a basic unit with which to build a city. Although the microdistrict followed the idea of population distribution from the Linear City Model, it contains a fundamental difference from that strategy as its progenitors understood that, instead of an infinite, unlimited city model, limiting the size of neighborhoods is extremely important in the creation of the socialist commune. Regarding this, Juliana Maxim argues that microdistrict is profound as “the word micro implies planning of a radically different scale, one that engulfs the entirety of the national territory, and of which the microdistrict is but one small constitutive part.”[15] Ever since the microdistrict model for socialist urban planning was introduced in the 1930s, it became the basic tool in urban and city development at a variety of scales, from residential units to community, and from community block to city.
Each microdistrict covered between ten and twenty hectares with from ten thousand to twenty thousand inhabitants. A minimum number of inhabitants is set because each microdistrict should be able to sustain certain public amenities, such as schools, daycares, and stores. As the socialist planners distinguished automobile traffic from pedestrian traffic, the microdistrict had to be designed as a pedestrian-oriented block without allowing any automobile traffic through, and the distance to public amenities could not exceed five hundred meters.[16]
In many case, with a few exceptions like a Vietnamese microdistrict that was built in brick, microdistricts were built with prefab concrete. There were a couple of advantages to this prefab housing in a microdistrict, including the fast and cheap construction allowing for mass production of housing, and the chance to build factories for prefab concrete. Most socialist countries adopted the idea of microdistricts to introduce socialist modern life in their cities, which are engaged in replacing old village-type houses with urban residential complexes and accommodating an increasing population in the city during industrialization. Therefore the affordability and speed of construction were important features of microdistricts so that they could be mass produced in many other locations. Also, in socialist society, all people work, and some work in factories; therefore, setting up prefab concrete factories was an even better choice for socialists than on-site concrete.[17] Although massive numbers of housing units could be provided with these advantages, microdistricts are often criticized for their homogenous design and lack of individuality.
The microdistric idea is often compared to Clarence Perry’s “neighborhood unit” idea, developed through his paper “1929 Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs,” as both ideas attempt to design functional, self-sustainable, and desirable residential communities by regulating the size of the community and providing supported amenities. Despite their similaries in goals, there are differences between the two. First, the micro district is developed for urban living, and therefore, collective dwelling buildings are at least five or ix stories high, often reaching thirty stories, while neighborhood units in suburban areas have single-family detached houses. Second, a microdistrict emphasizes co-op living, and therefore, some microdistricts provide shared kitchens, whereas neighborhood units keep the privacy of individual tenants. Thirdly, as all people should work in socialist cities, the microdistrict is close to production facilities or factories, and occasionally includes them in the district as co-production facilities.
The microdistrict idea has been massively applied in the post-war period in most socialist countries, including in the former Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, and in China. However, since the 1990s, along with the adoption of a market-oriented economy, transformations in microdistricts have happened on both a big and small scale. Due to the need to reveal individuality, inhabitants started to have their own interior designs for their units, which are evident to the outside in most cases. And in other cases, like East Berlin, new buildings, for both dwellings and public amenities, are implements in the existing microdistrict, which had low density and thus a higher ration of open space. Meanwhile, many post-socialist cities have plans to demolish outdates microdistricts and replace them with more modern housing, such as in Moscow, which recently announced its plan to demolish 8,000 building units of a microdistrict.
Rise of the Microdistrict in Pyongyang
In North Korea, ju-taek-so-ku-yuk, which literally means microdistrict housing, was first introduced in the 1950s during reconstruction of the nation following the Korean War; later, guidelines for it were published in 1963. The idea was introduced through two channels: the Soviet Union and East Germany. In the first channel, students studied in the Soviet Union, including Kim Jeong-Hui, who was the master architect of the master plan for reconstructing Pyongyang in the 1950s, and who returned to North Korea with the idea. In the second channel, the idea was applied by professionals and engineers from the GDR, who played a major role in reconstructing Hamhung, the second largest city in North Korea.[18]
In the reconstruction period, Pyongyang was planned as a city of one million. The master plan, drawn up by Kim Jeong-Hui, introduced several satellite districts, similar to Howard’s Garden City diagram. Each district was composed of microdistricts, and each microdistrict was composed of from four to five different residential groups. After the fuideline for microdistrict planning was set, this idea of the microdistrict was further clarified by introducing goals and rules for the planning. The guidelines clearly says a microdistrict must be planned in order to have the most convenient environment for residents, and must be constructed to be efficient as well as aesthetically pleasing.[19]
During the reconstruction in the 1950s and 1960s, the Tongdaewon area was considered as a central area, along with the area around Kim Il Sung Square, which was across the Taedong River, and the area was developed with a microdistrict. As it was one of the first microdistricts in the city, it followed the original guidelines for a microdistrict. A rough city grid was formed to outline the boundary of the microdistrict, and production facilities, such as cottage industry factories, were embedded in the microdistrict. Amongst the four different layouts of the microdistrict – parallel, peripheral, mixed, and free – the mixed type is the layout mostly applied in the area, and originally, residential buildings of from five to seven stories were constructed at the perimeters of each block, which were later replaced with buildings of fifteen to twenty stories.
Also, as it was still during the reconstruction period that the socialist bloc’s support was still strong, many apartment buildings that had a linear form and were several stories high were influenced by Eastern European architecture at the time. Although the influence from other socialist countries, including the Soviet Union, was apparent, it was also in the 1960s when North Korea started to develop its own terminology and typology of residential prototypes and guidelines for ju-taek-so-ku-yuk/주택소구역.
The Second Phase of the Microdistrict
After the first phase of reconstruction, the second major residential developments based on ju-taek-so-ku-yuk/주택소구역, such as Kwangbok Street and Tongil Street, happened in the late 1980s through the early 1990s in Pyongyang.[20] Unlike the first phase, the second phase was developed on the outskirts of the urbanized area of the city, and residential buildings started to be as high as thirty stories. The areas were not part of the original master plan, drawn up in the 1950s, but as the city’s population increased the city needed to expand its urban boundary westward by developing new residential districts. The original master plan foresaw the population being one million, but in the late 1980s, the population of Pyongyang already exceeded two million. For this reason, Tongil Street, which is on the southern bank of the Taedong River, and Kwangbok Street, on the northern bank of the river, were developed to house nearly 50,000 residents in the area. As they were developed to house more people in the city, high-rise apartments were introduced in these areas.
Unlike the mid-rise apartments in the Tongdaewon area in the first phase of microdistrict development, the second-phase developments had more apartment buildings that were more than thirty stories high. Although there was a change in height, these developments still followed the microdistrict guideline. They implemented daycares, schools and stores along with plenty of open spaces on the ground level to provide a better quality of living environment. It was the influence of the Soviet Union then that also started to develop high-rise microdistrict apartments. The difference was, however, the form of th buildings. As Kim Jong Il, the second leader of the nation, emphasized, the esthetics of architecture in the high-rise apartments came in certain forms, such as windmills or waves, while the soviet Union’s apartments still looked like panels.
Even though the height and the form of apartment buildings changed, the idea of a microdistrict, providing enough open space with schools, daycares, and civic amenities, was kept. However, the idea started to fall off in recent years.
The Fall of the Microdistrict
It was not until recent development, which I argue was the third phase of residential development in Pyongyang, that the idea of ju-taek-so-ku-yuk/주택소구역, or the microdistrict, started to fall apart. Since the new regime began in 2011 under Kim Jong Un, these developments, such as Changjeon Street, Mirae Scientist Street, and Ryomyong Street, have had three major aspects that distinguish them from the previous developments. The first aspect is the location. Unlike the second-phase developments that happened on the outskirts of the city center, new developments came back to the city center. If the second-phase residential developments in Tongil Street and Kwangbok Street were mainly to provide more residential units to meet the lack of housing. Those three major developments mentioned above as the third-phase developments are all redevelopment projects that demolished obsolete apartment buildings in the city center and replaced them with new high-rise apartment buildings. Also, these locations are considered as desirable areas in the city as they are close to subway stations, major boulevards, and the riverside, which implies that the idea of real estate value is being applied.
Another aspect of these developments is that, especially with regard to the Ryomyong Street and Mirae Scientist Street developments, they have various designs in each building. The socialist microdistric was part of a mass housing production plan, and therefore, residential buildings were standardized with pre-fab construction, which allowed little variations in residential buildings designs. In the previous two phases of microdistrict development in Pyongyang, as mentioned above, although some formal gestures in residential buildings were made in the Tongil Street and Kwangbok Street developments, most of the residential buildings had homogenous and paternalistic designs. Unlike previous cases, new developments are filled with variously designed residential buildings that do not appear to be part of one single development.
The last aspect, which is the most crucial one, is programmatic change in these developments. As mentioned, one of the key features of a microdistrict is that it provides supporting amenities and spaces, such as daycares, schools, stores, and open spaces, to enhance the quality of living environment. Along with these, in microdistricts in Pyongyang, production facilities are also implemented so that the proximity between residential life and work can be realized. However, recent developments in the city do not really follow these aspects. Although schools and daycares are still provided, there is little open space in the developments and no factories are implemented. Meanwhile, more commercial stores are being introduced than in previous microdistricts.
All these changes in new residential developments in Pyongyang show the trend of real estate development in the city. Developments in prime real estate locations, variations in designs that have trends, and mixed-use developments are all features that we can find in real estate developments in market-oriented cities.
Conclusions
The change that this paper has considered in the development and organization of both microdistricts and the wider retail market has no been limited to only Pyongyang. Even though Pyongyang is the most well-seen city from outside of North Korea, some other cities in the country have even more changes to be transformed by the processes and trends described by this paper. For instance, Rason Special Economic Zone recently announced early this year that they city will estimate prices of state-owned houses and give opportunities to households to buy their units. According to the Korea Development Bank (KDB) think tank report, this was the first time that the North Korean government officially offered a housing policy that allowed the privatization of housing, and people have option of paying in full at once or pay in twenty-five years’ time with certain amount of interest.[21] These prices are based on many factors, such as location, built year, view and orientation, and number of floors, which are not much different criteria from any other capitalist real estate market. And price in the zone varies from one dollar to five dollar per square meter in regular house, and often the times, it goes beyond five thousand dollars per unit in center of the city.[22]
Of course, house sales are not new in North Korea. Since the Arduous March in the 1990s, exchanges and sales of housing started to emerge to overcome the lack of food distribution. Empty apartments increased both in rural and city, due to defection or starve to death, and as a result, brokers emerged to find and sell those apartments to people. It was also in this period when small scale private housing construction and sales started to happen. As municipal governments failed to meet planned number for housing units, privates, such as donju, borrowed permission for housing supply from public and provided housing stock.[23]
Kim Jong Un’s model of economic reform and openness in 2012, in fact sought to systemize what had already been committed unofficially in the society. Under this policy, Kim allowed each corporation to decide the price of economic items, which might eventually reflect market demand, and therefore, the government housing corporation is now allowed to estimate the price of each housing unit which will lead to the development of a real estate market.[24] In a way, the policy indirectly questioned the effective value of the notion of the microdistrict. As the policy allowed pricing of only non-production facilities, such as housing units, production facilities within microdistrict still could not be marketized. Also, in many case, open spaces, schools, or daycare facilities are overlooked as they are not easy to be privatized. Therefore, the basic structure of the microdistrict, a complex of residential stock along with open space, schools, and daycare started to fall, and only facilities that can be priced and privatized, such as residential units and commercial spaces, remain and are amplified.
Along with the new economic reform policy, Kim Jong Un’s new strategy to give more autonomy to municipal governments allowed some cities to announce policies such as that in Rason. As giving more autonomy to municipal government meant that each would have its own strategy to find enough funding to invest in the city they are responsible for, many North Korean cities already have developed or are on the process of developing their own development plan, and those plans include the privatization of real estate for both domestic donju and international investors.[25] This, of course, will influence physical morphology of those cities, as now locations, scales, or types of developments shall reflect demands of investors.
For instance, cities like Sinuiju and Chongjin introduced new urban development plans along with real estate investment policies[26] In both cases, new policies will influence the physical form of the cities as well. In the development plans, high-rise and mixed-use type residential towers are introduced as major residential typology along so-called prime real estate locations, such as river, parks, or squares. In short, these plans are following the successful real estate development model that has happened in Pyongyang. Their master plan models show series of apartment developments that resemble Mirae Scientist Street or Ryomyong Street developments that are more of mixed-use development type than microdistrict model. And it is obvious that socialist microdistrict housing model will fall or decline in importance in the near future in most of major cities in North Korea.
The microdistrict, one of the core ideas for a socialist city, has obvious weak points that can be broken in a market-oriented system. Not only does it have a paternalistic approach that overlooks personal identities, but it also conflicts with the profitability of real estate in the city. From the point of view of real estate, the microdistrict provides too much open space, which can be filled with more developments an dother support facilities such as schools and daycares that cannot be used for profit. Therefore, already, most of the microdistricts in post-socialist cities are considered to be a form of obsolete residential typology that needs to be removed. For instance, Moscow recently announce a plan to demolish the existing 8,000 building units of a microdistrict, and it seems this will be followed by many other demolitions in the city and others. Even though there are still many efforts to keep microdistricts by providing new developments within such districts as infill developments, it is still obvious that the original form of a microdistrict cannot reflect a market-driven economy.
This phenomenon of losing the idea of a microdistrict during the transition to a market economy is already happening in Pyongyang as well as other major cities in North Korea. When we investigate recent major developments of these city, there is less paternalism in developments that are providing buildings of different designs and types of units. Also there are fewer open spaces and supporting amenities. It is hard to distinguish these developments from other mixed-use developments in other capitalist cities.
In this sense, the recent residential developments in Pyongyang tell demonstrate the developmental path will occur in the future in other North Korean cities, led by the capital itself. The microdistrict strategy, reflecting a socialist ideology of urban living, will slowly disappear, and a more market-driven real estate development logic will take over its place.
Notes
1. Assistant Professor at Hongik University Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Design.
2. Joung, E. Puk-han pu-tong-san kae-pal-op-chaui tung-chang-kwa ham-ui-e kwan-han pun-sok (정은이. 북한 부동산 개발업자의 등장과 함의에 관한 분석), Korea Development Institute Journal, 9 (2016)
3. Yi, Wang-gi. Pukhan Eso Ui Konch’uksa Yon’gu (Research on Architectural History in North Korea) (북한에서의 건축역사 연구)(Seoul: Paron, 1994).
4. Yi, Wang-gi. Pukhan konch’uk, Tto Hana Ui Uri Mosup (북한건축, 또 하나의 우리 모습, North Korean Architecture) (Seoul: Seoul Forum, 2000)
5. Lee, Jungsub. Ilje Kangjumgi Dosihwa-wa Ingu Idong (일제 강점기 도시화와 인구 이동) (Daehan: Jiri Hakhwoe 2017).
6. Springer, Chris. P’yongyang: The Hidden History of the North Korean Capital (Budapest: Entente Bt, 2003).
7. Yim, Dongwoo. P’yongyang Kurigo P’yongyang Ihu (평양, 그리고 평양 이후)(Kyongido Pajusi: Hyohyung Chulpan, 2011).
8. Bater James H. The Soviet City: Ideal and Reality (London: Arnold, 1980).
9. Yim, Dongwoo. P’yongyang Kurigo P’yongyang Ihu (평양, 그리고 평양 이후)(Kyongido Pajusi: Hyohyung Chulpan, 2011).
10. Ibid.
11. Hamilton, Frederick Edwin Ian, and Richard Anthony French. The Socialist City: Spatial Structure and Urban Policy (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Books on Demand, 1994).
12. Colton, Timothy J. Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).
13. Ibid.
14. Meuser, P., & Zadorin, D. Towards a Typology of Soviet Mass Housing: Prefabrication in the USSR, 1955-1991 (Berlin: DOM, 2015).
15. Maxim, J. “The Microrayon: The Organization of Mass Housing Ensembles, Bucharest, 1956-1967,” in Docomomo E-Proceedings 4, ed. Popescu and Glendinning, 16.
16. Van Dijk, I. Planning Politics. 39th IsoCaRP Congress, 2003.
17. Krasheninnokov. A. Understanding Slums: Case Studies for the Global Report 2003. Report. Development Planning Unit, UCL (London, UCL: 2003).
18. Kim, Mina and Jung, Inha. “The Planning of Microdistricts in Post-war North Korea: Space, Power, and Everyday Life.” Planning Perspectives, 32, no 2 (2016): 119-223.
19. Chu-t’aek-so-ku-yok-kye-hoek. Kuk-lip-kon-sol-ch’ul-p’an-sa (주택소구역계획. 국립건설출판사), 1963.
20. Yim, Dongwoo. (Un)precedented P’yongyang (Actar: Seoul, 2017).
21. Kim, C. Puk-han-ui Ch’oe-kun Kyong-che-kae-hyok Tong-hyang mich’ Si-sa-chom. Weekly KDB Report, 2019.5 김철희. 북한의 최근 경제계획 동향 및 시사점. 주간 산업은행 보고서, 2019.5.
22. Kim, Jieun. “North Korea Tries Out Private Home Ownership in Rason.” Radio Free Asia. March 26, 2019. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/nk-private-homeownership-03262019144309.html.
23. Hong, S. Puk-han Chu-t’aek-si-chang-ui Hyong-song-kwa Pal-chon-e Kwan-han Yon-ku (홍성원. 북한 주택시장의 형성과 발전에 관한 연구). Master’s thesis, University of North Korean Studies (북한학대학원), 2014.
24. Lankov, Andrei. “North Korea under Kim Jong-un: Reforms without Openness?” Foreign Policy Research Institute. June 6, 2018. Accessed July 30, 2019. https://www.레갸.org/article/2018/06/north-korea-under-kim-jong-un-reforms-without-openness.
25. Ibid.
26. Son, K. 2018/4th quarter, puk-han kon-sol – kae-pal tong-hyang (북한건설개발 동향), Land Housing Institute Report (국토연구원보고서), 2019.1.
