Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
83
UDC: 711.4-168:332.72(460.235.2)(519.512)
DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2018-29-01-003
Received: 8 Jan. 2018
Accepted: 16 Mar. 2018
Blaž KRIŽNIK
Transformation of deprived urban areas and social 
sustainability: A comparative study of urban  
regeneration and urban redevelopment in  
Barcelona and Seoul
The transformation of deprived urban areas is important 
for strengthening social sustainability in particular local-
ities, and it is also instrumental in attracting new invest-
ments to cities. Speculative urban development, however, 
often ignores the social importance of localities and con-
siders them mere economic assets that can be stripped 
of historical, social, and symbolic meaning and turned 
into easily marketed commodities. This article examines 
the somewhat contradictory role of the transformation 
of deprived urban areas in cities. It compares Barcelona 
and Seoul, two cities with different historical, cultural, 
and institutional contexts. The 22@ Activity District in 
Poblenou and Wangsimni New Town are explored as case 
studies to understand how urban regeneration and ur-
ban redevelopment are embedded in a particular locality 
and what consequences they have on social sustainabil-
ity. Although the two cases differ in terms of planning 
approach, stakeholders, and institutional contexts, the 
findings suggest that the consequences for social sustain-
ability were similar in both. The article argues that de-
clining social cohesion and a lack of citizen participation 
were a consequence of speculative urban development, 
in which urban regeneration and urban redevelopment 
were instrumentalized to attract investments, strengthen 
economic competitiveness, and improve the city’s global 
appeal rather than address diverse local challenges.
Keywords: citizen participation, social cohesion, social 
sustainability, urban redevelopment, urban regeneration
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
84 B. KRIŽNIK
1 Introduction
Cities compete to attract investments, jobs, events, and tourists 
to boost their economic growth and urban development, and 
to improve their quality of life. There is little evidence, how-
ever, that competition benefits everyone equally. In fact, the 
benefits of competition are often rather unevenly distributed 
across different social groups in the city (Brenner et al., 2012; 
Harvey, 2012). Moreover, environmental degradation, social 
and economic disparities, and declining civil rights are seen 
as a consequence of a competitive urban policy that prior-
itizes commodification of public space, privatization of social 
amenities and services, deregulation of urban planning, and 
the construction of iconic projects, along with city market-
ing (Short, 2004; Mayer, 2007). This market-driven urban de-
velopment considers localities to be mere economic assets that 
can be stripped of historical, social, and symbolic meanings, 
and turned into easily marketed commodities (Balibrea, 2001; 
Short, 2004; Križnik, 2011). In this sense, the transformation 
of deprived urban areas has become instrumental in attracting 
new investments to cities  (Smith, 2002; Shin & Kim, 2016). 
At the same time, the improvement of deprived urban are-
as is also important for strengthening social sustainability in 
cities  (Manzi et  al., 2010; Colantonio  & Dixon, 2011; Ho 
et al., 2012).
This article examines the somewhat contradictory role that the 
transformation of deprived urban areas has in cities. It com-
pares Barcelona and Seoul, two cities with rather different his-
torical, cultural, and institutional contexts. Previous research 
suggests that in spite of these differences the transformation 
of what the Barcelona City Council and Seoul Metropolitan 
Government  (SMG) considered to be underdeveloped ur-
ban areas was often instrumentalized to attract investments, 
strengthen economic competitiveness, and improve the global 
appeal of Barcelona  (Marshall, 2000; Balibrea, 2001; Arba-
ci & Tapada-Berteli, 2012; Dot Jutgla et al., 2012; Charnock 
et al., 2014) and Seoul (Cho, 2008; Kim, 2010; Križnik, 2011; 
Shin  & Kim, 2016). This was publicly legitimized as being 
of strategic importance for the city and seemingly beneficial 
for all citizens (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2000, 2012; SMG, 
2005, 2010). This similarity regarding instrumentalization and 
legitimization is the starting point for comparing the transfor-
mation of deprived urban areas in Barcelona and Seoul and its 
consequences for social sustainability in individual localities.
Although urban development in Barcelona and Seoul is well 
studied, it has seldom been discussed from a comparative per-
spective; exceptions include Uršič and Križnik  (2012), Col-
antonio et al.  (2014), and Križnik (2014). The article begins 
with a discussion on the relationship between urban devel-
opment and social sustainability to establish a framework for 
assessing the consequences of urban development for social 
sustainability in localities. Barcelona and Seoul are compared 
in terms of their position in the global urban system and their 
respective national urban systems, institutional contexts, and 
planning approaches. 22@ Activity District  (22@) in Barce-
lona’s Poblenou and Wangsimni New Town (WNT) in Seoul 
are explored as an in-depth case study of urban regeneration 
in Barcelona and urban redevelopment in Seoul in terms of 
planning approach, stakeholders, and consequences for social 
sustainability.[1] Finally, the findings are summarized, the con-
clusion is presented, and limitations of the study are discussed.
2 Urban development and social 
sustainability
Sustainable urban development is commonly addressed in 
terms of the “three-E framework,” according to which sus-
tainable economic growth of cities should be balanced with 
environmental protection and social equity  (Mayer  & Knox, 
2006: 324). Balancing the economy, the environment, and so-
cial equity requires negotiation between stakeholders, which 
implies that sustainable urban development also has an inher-
ent political dimension. In contrast to the past, when sustain-
able urban development used to be reduced to its economic 
and environmental dimensions, a multi-dimensional approach, 
which recognizes the importance of social sustainability for 
long-term sustainable urban development, is now widely ac-
cepted  (Dempsey et  al., 2011; Dujon et  al., 2013). One rea-
son for the relatively little attention that social sustainability 
received earlier is related to the insufficient understanding of 
the relationship between social sustainability and urban de-
velopment. Another reason lies in the often intangible social 
consequences of urban development, which eventually pose 
difficulties for implementing and assessing urban policy that 
promotes social sustainability.
Colantonio and Dixon (2011:  24) argue that social sustain-
ability should be approached in terms of “traditional social 
policy areas and principles, such as equity and health, with 
emerging issues concerning participation, needs, social capi-
tal, the economy, the environment, and, more recently, with 
the notions of happiness, well-being, and the quality of life.” 
In Colantonio and Dixon’s view, urban policy that aims to 
strengthen social sustainability should improve the quality of 
everyday life; promote equal opportunities for social groups 
with different economic, social, and cultural backgrounds; fos-
ter social integration by addressing economic, social, and po-
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
85Transformation of deprived urban areas and social sustainability: A comparative study of urban regeneration and urban redevelopment
litical exclusion; sustain existing social and cultural structures 
in localities; encourage citizen participation in decision-mak-
ing; and support self-management of localities. Integration of 
a broad array of policies  – including those focusing on eco-
nomics, social welfare, education, the environment, and urban 
planning  – is therefore needed to strengthen social sustaina-
bility in cities (Dempsey et al., 2011).
Planning approaches that address the transformation of de-
prived urban areas, such as urban redevelopment or urban 
regeneration, are an important instrument to address social 
sustainability in cities  (Williams  & Dair, 2007; Manzi et  al., 
2010; Colantonio  & Dixon, 2011; Ho et  al., 2012). Apart 
from providing affordable housing, social amenities, and infra-
structure, transformation of deprived urban areas can mitigate 
social inequalities and address social exclusion in localities by 
creating inclusive places where social groups with different 
backgrounds can meet and where communal life and shared 
identities can be created and reproduced  (Forrest  & Kearns, 
2001). Urban redevelopment, however, is focused on physical 
improvement and re-imaging of deprived urban areas, which 
are partly or entirely demolished and replaced with new urban 
development. This often leads to a massive displacement of 
residents and the collapse of their social networks. In contrast, 
urban regeneration addresses the economic, social, environ-
mental, and physical transformation of deprived urban areas, 
where new urban development is integrated within existing 
social and urban fabric (Cho & Križnik, 2017; Roberts et al., 
2017). Ho et  al.  (2012:  127) argue that such a gradual and 
comprehensive approach is more appropriate “for enhancing 
the sustainability of the built environment.”
Citizen participation is widely regarded as playing a critical 
role in strengthening social sustainability (Irvin & Stansbury, 
2004; Dempsey et al., 2011). It leads stakeholders to become 
better aware of various interests, problems, and opportunities 
in localities, as well as to learn to solve these challenges col-
lectively. This can improve the quality of planning, legitimize 
decision-making, and also encourage citizens to actively use 
and appropriate places that are transformed with their partic-
ipation (Cerar, 2014). Cho and Križnik (2017: 151) recognize 
“the necessity of building a robust partnership between the 
state and civil society” as an important step towards success-
ful community-based urban development and stronger social 
sustainability in cities. In their view, planning approaches 
that aim to strengthen social sustainability should promote 
citizens’ active involvement in decision-making and contribute 
to socially cohesive localities. These are characterized by low 
levels of social inequality, strong social connections and trust, 
and well-established communication and cooperation among 
citizens and public institutions  (Larsen, 2013). In this way, 
the transformation of deprived urban areas can improve social 
interaction, trust, and solidarity among various stakeholders, 
as well as confidence in public institutions, which according 
to Manzi et al. (2010: 18) are the “core concepts and guiding 
principles for a localized social sustainability agenda.”
Many cities in which citizens are excluded from decision-mak-
ing face difficulties in maintaining their social and territorial 
cohesion  (Brenner et  al., 2012). Harvey  (1989: 13) argues 
that these problems largely stem from what he calls “urban 
entrepreneurialism” and “ruinous inter-urban competition.” As 
a result, urban development becomes increasingly speculative 
and instrumental in mobilizing “urban real-estate markets as 
vehicles of capital accumulation” (Smith, 2002: 446). In terms 
of capital accumulation, cities with a comparatively peripheral 
position in the global urban system are expected to face strong-
er pressures than dominant centres (Gugler, 2004; Short, 2004; 
Harvey, 2012). Taylor (2004) calls these cities “wannabe global 
cities,” indicating their aspiration to challenge the established 
relations in the global urban system. Inter-urban competition 
and resulting speculative urban development can in turn neg-
atively affect not only social sustainability in localities but also 
cities’ long-term capacity to effectively address emerging social, 
economic, and environmental challenges (Wolfram, 2018).
3 Research methodology
In contrast to what she calls the “classical comparative ap-
proach,” Sassen  (2001:  348) argues that comparing cities in 
the global urban system requires a new methodology; one 
that is not based on standardization across cases, but that 
tries to track “a given system or dynamic .  .  . and its distinct 
incarnations . . . in different countries.” This study follows her 
suggestion and compares Barcelona and Seoul to better un-
derstand the consequences of speculative urban development 
on social sustainability. Both cities formerly occupied a sim-
ilar position in the global and national urban system in the 
past. Earlier research suggests that this affected the transfor-
mation of deprived urban areas, which was instrumentalized 
to attract investments, strengthen economic competitiveness, 
and improve the global appeal of Barcelona and Seoul (Mar-
shall, 2000; Balibrea, 2001; Cho, 2008; Kim, 2010; Križnik, 
2011; Arbaci & Tapada-Berteli, 2012; Dot Jutgla et al., 2012; 
Charnock et  al., 2014; Shin  & Kim, 2016). This was largely 
legitimized in public as being of strategic importance for the 
city and seemingly beneficial for all citizens  (Ajuntament de 
Barcelona, 2000, 2012; SMG, 2005, 2010).
The similar instrumentalization and legitimization of urban 
development in relation to the position of both cities in 
the global urban system and their respective national urban 
systems constitutes the methodological starting point for a 
cross-cultural comparison of the transformation of deprived 
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
86
urban areas in Barcelona and Seoul. Although both have 
been discussed from a comparative perspective, earlier studies 
focused on the impact of inter-urban competition on urban 
management (Uršič & Križnik, 2012), the role of multi-level 
urban governance for their economic resilience  (Colantonio 
et  al., 2014), or the grassroots responses to the globalization 
of Barcelona and Seoul  (Križnik, 2014). These studies paid 
less attention to the impact of urban development on social 
sustainability, which is recognized as a major challenge for 
cities in the future  (Dempsey et  al., 2011; Wolfram, 2018). 
For this reason, 22@ in Barcelona and WNT in Seoul are 
explored as an in-depth case study of urban development to 
understand how different planning approaches are embedded 
in a particular locality and what consequences they have on 
social sustainability. The assessment of social sustainability fo-
cuses on social cohesion and on the involvement of citizens 
in decision-making, which are recognized as the key princi-
ples of social sustainability (Forrest & Kearns, 2001; Irvin & 
Stansbury, 2004; Manzi et al., 2010; Cho & Križnik, 2017).
The field research consisted of numerous site visits to Poblenou 
and Wangsimni between 2006 and 2012 to observe their social 
and urban transformation. During this period, semi-structured 
interviews were conducted with twelve interviewees from Bar-
celona and sixteen from Seoul, each of them belonging to one 
of five major stakeholders’ groups.[2] Two surveys – which in-
cluded 148 respondents from Poblenou and ninety-five from 
Wangsimni  – were carried out in  2006 and  2007, with the 
aim of comparing the consequences of the transformation of 
each locality on everyday life. These surveys were based on 
quota non-probability sampling, in which respondents were 
selected according to their sex, age, place of birth, education, 
and homeownership.[3] Because this method does not allow 
generalization of the survey results to the overall population, 
these were complemented with in-depth interviews and exten-
sive analysis of secondary sources. These included but were not 
limited to local government documents and reports, research 
papers on urban policy and planning, and various historical 
records about Poblenou and Wangsimni. Finally, the findings 
were discussed with field experts in both cities in order to avoid 
cultural bias in understanding and assessing the data, which is 
believed to be a major difficulty in cross-cultural studies (Han-
trais & Mangen, 1996).
4. Case study: Barcelona and Seoul
4.1 The institutional context of urban 
development in Barcelona and Seoul
Barcelona and Seoul are the capitals of Catalonia and South 
Korea. Both used to occupy a similar position in the global 
urban system, which Gugler (2004) described as second-tier 
global cities. Taylor  (2004) similarly ranked Barcelona and 
Seoul as thirty-second and forty-first, respectively, in terms 
of their global network connectivity based on his analysis of 
advanced producer services in the early 2000s. Other authors 
identified the comparably peripheral position of Barcelona and 
Seoul in the global urban system in the past (Beaverstock et al., 
1999; Alderson et  al., 2010; Csomós & Derudder, 2013). In 
contrast to dominant centres, such as New York, London, or 
Tokyo, which Sassen  (2001: 3) recognized as the “command 
points in the organization of the world economy,” the im-
portance of Barcelona and Seoul in the global urban system 
resulted from their role of connecting the national economy 
to global markets. Barcelona is a case of what Taylor  (2004) 
calls an “inner wannabe city.” For the past two decades, the 
strategic goal of the local government was to challenge the 
dominant position of Madrid in the national urban system by 
developing innovation, knowledge, and creative industries, as 
well as advancing communication, logistics, and transportation 
infrastructure (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012). The city tried 
to improve its position not only in relation to Madrid but also 
to other European and Mediterranean cities (Monclús, 2003; 
OECD, 2009). In contrast, Seoul used to be an example of 
an “outer wannabe city,” trying to compete with Tokyo, Hong 
Kong, and Beijing by boosting advanced producer services 
and by promoting knowledge and cultural industries  (Tay-
lor, 2004). Although Seoul offers world-class communication 
and transportation infrastructure, improving the quality of life 
remains one of the main strategic goals of the local govern-
ment (OECD, 2005; SMG, 2013).
In this way, both cities successfully transformed themselves 
from industrial national capitals into important post-industrial 
global cities over the past decade. Seoul in particular has man-
aged to considerably strengthen its global “command-and-con-
trol function,” whereas Barcelona maintains its competitive 
advantages despite the declining importance of European cit-
ies overall  (Csomós  & Derudder, 2013:  346). Globalization 
has thus strengthened their role as national economic, social, 
cultural, and political centres, leading to a further concentra-
tion of population, and financial and political power. In 2014, 
about  63% of the Catalan population lived in the Barcelona 
Metropolitan Region and about 48% of South Koreans lived in 
the Seoul National Capital Region (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 
2015; SMG, 2015a). At the same time, Barcelona is not only 
the Catalan capital, but also the second-largest Spanish city, 
and the rivalry with Madrid has always strongly affected urban 
development (Monclús, 2003). Both continue to attract major 
investments, knowledge and cultural industries, advanced pro-
ducer services, jobs, and key R&D and educational institutions 
in Catalonia and South Korea, although the importance of 
metropolitan regions has recently grown (Choe, 2005; OECD, 
2005, 2009).
B. KRIŽNIK
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
87
This particular position of Barcelona and Seoul in the global 
and national urban system also affects the transformation of 
deprived urban areas, which has become increasingly instru-
mental in attracting investments to each city (Charnock et al., 
2014; Shin & Kim, 2016). The improvement of deprived urban 
areas in Barcelona dates back to the late nineteenth century, 
when large parts of the city centre were substantially trans-
formed. Following this tradition, the local government intro-
duced an innovative planning approach in the 1980s, which 
was “to deliver the renewal programme in the whole central 
district and tackle deprivation under a unique and integral 
vision”  (Arbaci  & Tapada-Berteli, 2012: 292). This planning 
approach was extended to peripheral areas after the 1980s (Es-
teban, 2004). Successful improvement of deprived urban ar-
eas has become widely recognized as an essential part of the 
“Barcelona model” of urban development  (Monclús, 2003). 
This refers to the large-scale urban regeneration of former in-
dustrial land into mixed-use and compact urban areas, which 
is sustained by public investments in social amenities and trans-
portation infrastructure, the provision of high-quality public 
space, and well-established partnerships between various stake-
holders (Marshall, 2000; Balibrea, 2001). Amid rising specu-
lative urban development, these partnerships were challenged 
during the 2000s, which led some authors to write about the 
demise of the Barcelona model  (Delgado, 2004; Degen  & 
García, 2012).
In contrast to Barcelona, the local government in Seoul used 
to promote the urban redevelopment of deprived urban are-
as rather than urban regeneration.[4] Since the late  1970s, a 
“wholesale clearance led by private investment was the dis-
tinct feature of Seoul’s urban redevelopment policies” and was 
commonly followed by forceful displacement of residents to 
make way for speculative urban development  (Kim  & Yoon, 
2003: 587). Virtually all of downtown Seoul has been trans-
formed in this way. During the past decade, however, the fail-
ure of urban redevelopment to address growing social, eco-
nomic, and environmental challenges has prompted the local 
government to reconsider this planning approach and start 
improving deprived urban areas in a more comprehensive and 
inclusive manner  (Cho, 2008; Kang, 2012; Križnik, 2013). 
Community-based urban regeneration became an integral part 
of urban development in Seoul after 2008 with the aim of 
involving citizens in planning and improving their neighbour-
hoods (SMG, 2013, 2015b).
Regarding the transformation of deprived urban areas, another 
important difference between Barcelona and Seoul is related 
to the institutional context of decision-making, in particular 
to the relation between public institutions and civil socie-
ty. The local democracy in Barcelona progressed along with 
the democratization of Catalan and Spanish society during 
the  1970s, and the first democratic local elections were held 
in 1979. In South Korea, democratization preceded local de-
mocracy, and the first democratic local elections were held 
in  1995. Citizen participation, in which private and civil 
society stakeholders take part in decision-making along with 
the local government, has a longer tradition in Barcelona than 
Seoul. Neighbourhood associations in particular used to play 
an important role in improving Barcelona’s deprived urban ar-
eas since the  1970s as broad grassroots coalitions, represent-
ing diverse local interests (Marshall, 2000; Esteban, 2004). In 
contrast, only property owners were able to take part in urban 
development in Seoul through the redevelopment associations, 
which were in practice controlled by construction corporations 
with active support from the local government  (Kim, 2013; 
Shin  & Kim, 2016). In Seoul it is therefore difficult to talk 
about institutionalized citizen participation in the transfor-
mation of deprived urban areas before the late  2000s  (Park, 
2006; Cho & Križnik, 2017).
4.2 Barcelona: The 22@ Activity District in 
Poblenou
The 22@ Activity District, introduced in 2000, is one of 
the largest urban regeneration projects undertaken in Bar-
celona in recent decades. It focuses on the transformation 
of  1,982,700  m² of former industrial land in the industrial 
heart of Barcelona into a compact and mixed-use district, 
where strategic sectors  – ICT, medical technology, biotech-
nology, energy management, and media and design  – are to 
replace traditional industry. This means that the plan is expect-
ed to foster economic growth, improve economic competitive-
ness, and sustain Barcelona’s transformation into a competitive 
global city. The Poblenou area was selected for this far-reaching 
transformation due to its proximity to the city centre, its low 
building density, the availability of vacant or underused land, 
accessibility, the underdeveloped local economy, its seemingly 
decaying social situation, and its long history of industriali-
zation (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2000, 2012; Oliva, 2003).
The industrialization of Poblenou dates back to the mid-nine-
teenth century, when large textile and machinery industries 
were established in the area due to good transportation and 
spatial conditions for industrial development. Many work-
ing-class neighbourhoods were built at that time along with 
the factories. Poblenou became known as the “Catalan Man-
chester” not only for its distinct industrial landscape, but also 
for its everyday life and local culture, characterized by a poor 
economic situation and low quality of life, vastly underdevel-
oped social amenities, and strong working-class solidarity and 
social activism (Arxiu Històric del Poblenou, 2001). The poor 
social and economic situation declined further after the 1960s, 
following the massive deindustrialization of the area and 
Transformation of deprived urban areas and social sustainability: A comparative study of urban regeneration and urban redevelopment
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
88
relocation of major industries out of the city. From  1970 
to  2001, around a quarter of residents left Poblenou due to 
the poor living conditions and unemployment (Table 1).
Improving the quality of life in Poblenou was therefore another 
important aim of  22@, apart from addressing the economic 
competitiveness of Barcelona. In this sense, urban regeneration 
was to transform the locality into a compact and mixed-use 
neighbourhood by providing new housing, green space, social 
amenities, and infrastructure, and by legalizing existing hous-
ing. Moreover, the industrial heritage was to be restored and 
integrated with the new urban development (Ajuntament de 
Barcelona, 2006). This was to be achieved primarily by focus-
ing on the urban development of what the local government 
called strategic areas, which were to act as “motors for the 
transformation of the area, .  .  .  grant coherence,” and allow 
for mixed-use with “sufficient continuity to the residential 
fabric” (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2000: 18).
The local government accordingly publicly presented and le-
gitimized 22@ as being of utmost importance for the future 
of Poblenou and the city  (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012). 
The former head of the municipal urban planning department 
was clear about the anticipated role of 22@ for the city’s long-
term economic growth, as well as about its importance for 
improving the quality of life in the locality. In his view, the 
“new services amalgamation must return to the city, to the new 
knowledge-based city. Urban development regulations must 
allow this recovery of industry, and economic promotion poli-
cies must foster it . . . to maintain our position among leading 
European cities, with new employees in new offices, with good 
communications . . . and, in short, to improve citizens’ quality 
of life” (Bragado i Acín, 2001: 42).
Table 1: Population growth in Poblenou.
1970 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
Population 64,493 61,403 57,328 58,021 55,945 58,035 69,396 77,393
Growth −5% −7% 1% −4% 4% 28% 4%
Source: Ajuntament de Barcelona (2015).
Figure 1: 22@ aims to integrate the existing neighbourhood with the new urban development (photo: Barcelona Activa, Barcelona City Council).
B. KRIŽNIK
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
89
Many of these initial aims have been achieved over the past 
decade. Poblenou has been transformed from a seemingly de-
clining neighbourhood into a bustling mixed-use one, where 
different social and economic activities seem to be well inte-
grated  (Figure  1). Emerging knowledge and cultural indus-
tries and services, educational and R&D facilities, and pub-
lic institutions provide new business opportunities and jobs, 
and the residents can enjoy new public parks and use new 
social amenities and infrastructure (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 
2012). However, contrary to the initial aims, the provision of 
these amenities did not follow the rapid pace of urban de-
velopment, and the protection of industrial heritage against 
anticipated commercialization of the area also did not work 
as expected. Moreover, Charnock et al. (2014: 200) argue that 
in reality “the transformation process has been largely deter-
mined by rentier practices to capture monopoly rents” rather 
than by promoting knowledge industries or improving the 
quality of life in Poblenou. Considering the decline of jobs 
in traditional industrial and service sectors, growing housing 
costs, and the exclusion of residents from bureaucratized de-
cision-making  (Marrero Guillamón, 2010; Dot Jutgla et  al., 
2012), it is not surprising that 22@ has also resulted in nega-
tive consequences for everyday life in Poblenou and triggered 
a grassroots mobilization against the transformation of the 
locality (Križnik, 2014).
4.3 Seoul: Wangsimni New Town
At first glance, WNT seems far less important for Seoul than 
22@ is for Barcelona. The urban redevelopment of a small 
mixed-use area of 324,000 m² into a new residential and com-
mercial neighbourhood was only one among many similar 
projects that were constructed all over the city throughout 
the past decade. WNT, however, is a pilot project of New 
Table 2: Population growth in Wangsimni.
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Population 32,622 34,298 31,212 25,224 26,178 23,961 13,682 13,086
Growth 5% −9% −19% 4% −8% −43% −4%
Source: SMG (2015a).
Figure 2: Wangsimni New Town has completely replaced the old neighbourhood (photo: Choi Hongyi).
Transformation of deprived urban areas and social sustainability: A comparative study of urban regeneration and urban redevelopment
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
90
Town Development – an initiative that the local government 
introduced in 2002 with the intention of balancing urban de-
velopment, creating new jobs and investment opportunities, 
and improving Seoul’s economic competitiveness (Kim, 2010; 
Kang, 2012). This was expected to resolve regional disparities 
by addressing problems of urban sprawl, housing, lacking in-
frastructure and social amenities, and shrinking employment. 
It focused on what the local government considered under-
developed urban areas in northern Seoul in order to balance 
its economic growth and urban development with the more 
affluent southern part  (SMG, 2010). The deputy mayor for 
public affairs and one of its masterminds emphasized the stra-
tegic importance of New Town Development. In his view, the 
“main rationale behind the New Town initiative was that it 
was the time to focus on the revitalization of existing neigh-
bourhoods rather than on sindosi development. . . . Therefore, 
the existing city had to be redeveloped based on wide-range, 
comprehensive plans that took into account the overall de-
mand for urban infrastructure”  (cited in Kim, 2010: 95).[5] 
Wangsimni was chosen to be one of the three pilot projects that 
were expected to showcase the benefits of this new planning 
approach, in which the social, economic, and environmental 
dimensions of urban redevelopment would be addressed in a 
comprehensive way (Cho & Križnik, 2017).
Wangsimni used to be located on the outskirts of pre-modern 
Seoul. During the city’s rapid industrialization in the  1960s, 
the locality became packed with small industries, which nev-
ertheless experienced a slow but steady economic decline 
over the subsequent decades  (Seoul Museum of History, 
2009). From  1979 to  2004, Wangsimni lost  27% of its pop-
ulation  (Table  2). The seemingly deteriorating economy and 
poor living environment, along with its good accessibility and 
proximity to the downtown area, are among the main reasons 
that the local government selected the area for New Town 
Development  (SMG, 2005). Yet this decision seems to have 
been less a result of the actual needs of the residents than 
the economic and political interests of the local government, 
particularly in relation to the nearby Cheonggyecheon Res-
toration.[6] Although the two were formally not related, the 
Cheonggyecheon Restoration had a direct influence on the 
decision to select Wangsimni as the pilot project and show the 
seemingly positive impacts of the restoration on the deprived 
urban areas (Kim, 2010).
WNT was planned as a mixed-use residential and commercial 
area with many social amenities and extensive green areas. The 
local government presented the plan as an “environmentally 
friendly urban centre community in harmony with Cheonggye 
Stream” and as a “rural area in the heart of the metropolis . . . a 
new community where residents of different generations and 
social groups could coexist” (SMG, 2005: 22). In reality, how-
ever, urban redevelopment has led to the full-scale demolition 
of the old and construction of a new neighbourhood, which 
has little in common either with the announced goals of the 
plan or with the interests of its stakeholders. This inconsistency 
between the plan and its actual implementation was largely a 
consequence of the changing attitude of the local government, 
which had initially called for the improvement of the existing 
urban areas and tried to listen to different stakeholders, but 
finally focused on the speculative interests of property own-
ers (Cho, 2008; Kim, 2010). The local government thus aimed 
to implement the plan as quickly as possible because this was 
considered of strategic importance for the city (SMG, 2010).
WNT, which is nearing completion, offers new residential 
and commercial space and social amenities, and has greatly 
improved the living environment for new residents (Figure 2). 
The transformation has not only significantly changed the liv-
ing environment in Wangsimni, but has also altered the estab-
lished social structure and economic organization, and had 
negative consequences for everyday life in the locality. Most of 
the former residents were displaced, and the large-scale dem-
olition negatively affected the local economy and communal 
life, and contributed to a loss of jobs in the traditional indus-
trial and service sectors (Kim, 2010). However, in contrast to 
the extensive grassroots mobilization in Poblenou, protests by 
small property owners and tenants in Wangsimni emerged late 
Table 3: Perception of everyday life and urban development in Poblenou and Wangsimni.
Poblenou Wangsimni
Workplace located in the neighbourhood 58% 66%
Frequently spending weekends in the neighbourhood 66% 69%
Meeting neighbours on a daily basis 28% 32%
Meeting neighbours on a weekly basis 20% 41%
Good relations with neighbours 69% 65%
Perception of neighbourhood as an underdeveloped area 29% 64%
Very familiar with 22@/WNT 17% 8%
22@/WNT reflects the interests of residents 6% 37%
B. KRIŽNIK
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
91
and were focused on protecting their material interests rather 
than challenging the transformation of the locality  (Križnik, 
2014).
4.4 Consequences and perception of urban 
development
The survey results and interviews reveal that Poblenou and 
Wangsimni used to have a well-developed economic and 
communal life before the urban development started. This 
largely contrasts with the notion of a deprived urban area, 
which the local government used in public to legitimize the 
transformation of Poblenou and Wangsimni  (Ajuntament de 
Barcelona, 2000; SMG, 2005). The survey showed that  66% 
of respondents in Poblenou and  69% in Wangsimni claimed 
that they frequently spent their free time in the locality. At the 
same time, about half of all respondents had their workplace 
in the neighbourhood, which together points towards a strong 
place attachment  (Livingston et  al., 2010). Twenty-eight per 
cent of respondents in Poblenou and 32% in Wangsimni met 
their neighbours on a daily basis, whereas 20% of respondents 
in Poblenou and  41% in Wangsimni met them on a weekly 
basis. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents in Poblenou and 65% 
in Wangsimni also considered their relationships with neigh-
bours excellent or good  (Table  3). The survey suggests that 
everyday life in Poblenou and Wangsimni used to be charac-
terized by relatively strong social cohesion in the past, which is 
of key importance for social sustainability in localities (Manzi 
et al., 2010; Colantonio & Dixon, 2011).
If the local governments had been concerned with social sus-
tainability, the transformation of Poblenou and Wangsimni 
should have maintained or strengthened social cohesion in the 
locality. Indeed, one of the aims of 22@ was to integrate new 
urban development with existing social and urban fabric by 
legalizing 4,614 housing units, which were earlier considered 
illegal due to the exclusive industrial land use (Ajuntament de 
Barcelona, 2000). Such an approach could have sustained the 
social connections, place attachment, and collective identity in 
Poblenou. However, many of these residential buildings were 
demolished due to speculative urban development. At the same 
time, old industrial buildings were also designated for demo-
lition, which has become a major source of conflict between 
the local government and residents. They considered industrial 
heritage to be an important part of their “collective memory 
of the history of industrialization”  (Grupo de trabajo sobre 
patrimonio del Fòrum Ribera del Besos, 2003: 7). Grassroots 
mobilization  – aiming to preserve old factories and the col-
lective identity of Poblenou – has forced the local government 
to designate a larger number of industrial buildings as cultural 
heritage and eventually transform some of them into social 
amenities (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2006).
The residents of Poblenou also faced expropriations, displace-
ment, a decline in jobs, and rising housing costs  (Assemblea 
de Joves del Poblenou i Assemblea d’Endavant  (OSAN) del 
Poblenou, 2011; Dot Jutgla et al., 2012). The new urban devel-
opment has seen more than twenty thousand residents move 
to Poblenou over the past decade, which is equivalent to one-
third of the neighbourhood’s population in 2000  (Table  1). 
During the same period, the population of Sant Martí district, 
where Poblenou is located, has grown by only 12%  (Ajunta-
ment de Barcelona, 2015). The actual number of new resi-
dents could be even higher because some old residents had to 
leave the area due to the growing costs and lack of affordable 
housing. From 2000 to 2010, the Sant Martí district saw the 
fastest growth of rents in the entire city. During this period, 
the average rental prices increased by 212%, which was higher 
than the average increase of 187% in Barcelona (Ajuntament 
de Barcelona, 2015). To address the issue of affordable housing, 
the local government planned to build four thousand social 
housing units, with 25% of them for the residents of Poblenou. 
By 2010, 1,520 units were actually completed (Ajuntament de 
Barcelona, 2012). As a result, residents started to perceive the 
ongoing transformation of the locality as a purposeful attempt 
on the part of the local government to change the existing 
social structure and collective identity of Poblenou (L’Associ-
ació de Veïns, 2003). This intensified conflicts between some 
groups of residents and the local government (Križnik, 2014).
In contrast to Poblenou, where the majority of residents stayed 
in the locality and part of the residential and industrial build-
ings were preserved, Wangsimni was completely demolished. 
More than ten thousand residents, or about  45% of its to-
tal population in  2004, have been forced to leave the local-
ity over the past decade  (Table  2). During this period, the 
Seongdong-gu district, where Wangsimni is located, has only 
seen a minimal decrease in the population  (SMG, 2015a). 
Among those that left were mostly tenants from low-income 
households. Due to the rising housing costs, these residents 
have little chance of returning once the construction of WNT 
is completed (Lee, 2009; Kang, 2012). In this regard, WNT 
differs little from earlier urban development in Seoul, where 
fewer than 20% of old residents usually return to a new neigh-
bourhood (Shin & Kim, 2016). Such massive displacement of 
residents can have a highly negative impact on social sustaina-
bility in localities (Manzi et al., 2010).
The transformation of Poblenou and Wangsimni also resulted 
in the decline of jobs in the traditional industrial and service 
sectors. In  1999, 1,661  industrial establishments accounted 
Transformation of deprived urban areas and social sustainability: A comparative study of urban regeneration and urban redevelopment
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
92
for  23% of all establishments in Poblenou. After 22@ got 
underway in 2000, their number declined by 21.6% to 1,302 
by  2004 and then continued to decline over the following 
years  (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2008). Although  56,000 
new jobs were reportedly created during the  2000s  (Ajunta-
ment de Barcelona, 2012), these were mostly taken by new 
residents or commuters and are inaccessible to those resi-
dents that used to work in traditional industries and services. 
The situation in Wangsimni was even more difficult, where 
industrial establishments accounted for  40.5% of the total 
in 2004 (Seongdong-gu District Office, 2006). Most of them 
were very small and organized as a networked industrial cluster, 
where physical proximity and direct contacts were essential 
for businesses  (Cho  & Križnik, 2017). After the large-scale 
demolition of Wangsimni, it was impossible to preserve these 
social and productive networks, and many were forced to re-
locate or close down. By 2012 there was virtually no industry 
in Wangsimni anymore. Earlier studies suggest that the tradi-
tional industrial and service sectors in Barcelona and Seoul 
had an important impact on the formation of social cohesion 
in localities  (Nahm, 2001; Marrero Guillamón, 2010). Their 
decline negatively affected both economic and social sustain-
ability in Poblenou and Wangsimni.
In contrast to Poblenou, where grassroots mobilization against 
the economic and social consequences of new urban devel-
opment started as early as  2000, the residents in Wangsimni 
initially supported WNT. Although they perceived it as a good 
place to live, they also saw Wangsimni as an underdeveloped 
area lacking business opportunities. This, in turn, made them 
initially support the plan (Table 3). Kim (2010) suggests that 
this support was also related to the fact that the local gov-
ernment managed the planning, which made the residents 
believe that WNT was presumably about public interests. 
Rising property values, which the residents expected would 
bring them significant financial gains, additionally contribut-
ed to their support. From  2002 to  2007, the land prices in 
Wangsimni increased by 111%, whereas the average increase of 
land prices in Seoul was 55% during the same period (Kang, 
2007). This significantly changed after 2006, according to the 
interviewees, because of the slow implementation of the plan, 
financial losses, rising housing costs, and corrupt practices of 
redevelopment associations. As a result, some property own-
ers and groups of tenants started actively contesting the plan’s 
implementation (Kim, 2010; Križnik, 2014).
The survey shows that, although at different points, the resi-
dents of Poblenou and Wangsimni perceived the new urban 
development as being in the interest of property owners, 
private corporations, or the local government, rather than in 
their own interest  (Table 3). The fact that 22@ was planned 
without citizen participation and that the local government in-
itially made little effort to involve residents in decision-making 
further strengthened this perception in Poblenou  (Degen  & 
García, 2012). For the majority of residents, the main problem 
was not the urban development itself, but the lack of their in-
volvement in decision-making (Oliva, 2003; Marrero Guillam-
ón, 2010). The rapid urban development on the one hand and 
slow improvement of social amenities on the other intensified 
the negative perception of 22@ according to the interviewees. 
In contrast to Poblenou, the local government in Seoul tried 
to involve residents in planning WNT. However, the slow pro-
cess of citizen participation with few tangible results, along 
with pressure from redevelopment associations to build WNT 
as quickly as possible, forced the local government to finally 
exclude residents from decision-making. This was beneficial 
for speculative property owners and private corporations but 
“significantly unfair for property owners who are against the 
project or for renters” (Kim, 2010: 154). Lee (2006), however, 
points out that the actual involvement of residents was below 
expectations. Some had no time, whereas others might have 
realized that they had no voice in a process dominated by re-
development associations.
It is not surprising that the survey respondents perceived the 
transformation of their neighbourhood rather negatively, al-
though many were not very familiar with the details of both 
plans. Only 6% of survey respondents in Poblenou believed 
that 22@ reflected residents’ interests, whereas  53% thought 
that the plan was about the interests of private corporations 
and the local government. In Wangsimni 37% of respondents, 
most of them property owners, believed that WNT was in 
their interest  (Table  3). The survey findings and interviews 
suggest that 22@ and WNT have consequently contributed to 
growing distrust between the residents and public institutions, 
which does not contribute to social sustainability (Manzi et al., 
2010; Dempsey at el., 2011).
5 Conclusion
There are differences between 22@ and WNT in terms of the 
planning approach, stakeholders, and institutional contexts. 
The former is an example of comprehensive long-term urban 
regeneration, which aims to integrate new urban development 
with the existing social and urban fabric in Poblenou. The 
local government initially prepared and implemented the plan 
in partnership with the private sector without much citizen 
participation. The latter is an example of short-term urban 
redevelopment, where the locality was completely demolished 
and replaced with new urban development. Although the res-
idents were partly involved in decision-making at the begin-
B. KRIŽNIK
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
93
ning, it was the private corporations, supported by the local 
government, that dominated the planning and implementation 
process. In spite of these significant differences, the research 
results suggest that 22@ and WNT had similar consequenc-
es for social sustainability in the locality, especially on social 
cohesion and the involvement of citizens in decision-making.
Everyday life in Poblenou and Wangsimni used to be character-
ized by strong social connections and place attachment, as well 
as a distinct local culture and collective identity. Both of the 
planning approaches, however, did little to sustain these social 
and cultural structures, which are important for strengthening 
social cohesion in the locality. New urban development, which 
led to the demolition of existing residential and industrial ar-
eas, loss of jobs in traditional industrial and service sectors, 
decline of communal life, and rising housing costs, contributed 
to the decline of social cohesion in Poblenou and Wangsimni 
rather than strengthening it. Although 22@ and WNT did 
create new jobs, provide new housing and public space, and 
improve social amenities and infrastructure, this was not equal-
ly beneficial for everyone, which has in turn negatively affect-
ed the perception of the transformation among some groups 
of residents. These perceived the new urban development as 
mainly being in the interests of the local government and 
private corporations, which has consequently weakened their 
confidence in public institutions. This was further undermined 
by the exclusion of the residents from decision-making.
Social sustainability is a rather multifaceted concept that is not 
easy to assess. This is even more difficult in the case of ongoing 
urban development, such as 22@ or WNT, where long-term 
consequences cannot yet be fully observed. Nevertheless, the 
lack of citizen participation along with a decline in social cohe-
sion – two major dimensions of a localized social sustainability 
agenda  – has been clearly identified in this study. Although 
there are important differences between the two planning 
approaches, in both cases the failure of 22@ and WNT to 
address social sustainability was a result of speculative urban 
development, where the transformation of deprived urban 
areas was instrumentalized to attract investments, strengthen 
economic competitiveness, and improve the global appeal of 
the city as a whole. Both plans were legitimized in public as 
seemingly beneficial to all citizens, whereas in reality the main 
beneficiaries were property owners and private corporations. 
The findings therefore show that speculative urban develop-
ment can negatively affect social sustainability, regardless of 
the planning approach used. However, this study is limited due 
to the ongoing transformation of Poblenou and Wangsimni. 
A follow-up study would be needed to determine subsequent 
changes in the planning approach over a longer period and 
fully assess the long-term impact of the transformation on 
social sustainability in Barcelona and Seoul.
Blaž Križnik
Hanyang University, Graduate School of Urban Studies, Seoul, 
Republic of Korea
E-mail: blaz@hanyang.ac.kr
Notes
[1] This study uses English terms for the particular planning approach-
es used in Barcelona and Seoul. Although 22@ was introduced as 
an urban renovation project (Catalan: renovació urbana), the English 
documents and literature refer to it as urban regeneration (Ajunta-
ment de Barcelona, 2000; 2012; Charnock et al., 2014). WNT is referred 
to as urban redevelopment (Korean: dosijaegaebal; SMG, 2010; Kim, 
2010; Križnik, 2014).
[2] In Barcelona the interviews included six interviewees representing 
civil society (the Poblenou Neighbours Association, the Historic Ar-
chive of Poblenou, the Commission Against 22@, and Forum Ribera 
del Besòs), three representing the local government (the Barcelona 
City Council, the Sant Martí District Council, and Barcelona Regional), 
one from the private sector (Network 22@), and two experts (UPC and 
IaaC). In Seoul five interviewees represented civil society (from the 
Committee for Community Development in Wangsimni, the Korean 
Council for Local Agenda 21, KOCER, and the Hope Institute), three 
were from local government (SMG and the Seoul Museum of History), 
four represented the private sector (the 2nd and 3rd Redevelopment 
Association in Wangsimni, the Association of Wangsimni Industry and 
Merchants, and Dongyang Purena), and four were experts (SDI, SNU, 
UOS, and Konkook University).
[3] The administrative units of El Poblenou and Wangsimni 1-dong 
were most affected by 22@ and WNT. In 2008 and 2006 they had 
populations of 30,949 and 14,099, which was the basis for the survey 
sampling (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2008; SMG, 2015a).
[4] Barcelona and South Korea formalized these planning approaches 
in 1976, when the Barcelona City Council passed the General Met-
ropolitan Plan, which provided a legal framework for urban regen-
eration of deprived urban areas, and the Urban Redevelopment Act 
was introduced in South Korea (Degen & García, 2012; Kim, 2013).
[5] Sindosi refers to new cities built in the Seoul metropolitan region 
in recent decades to address shortages in housing, social amenities, 
and infrastructure in Seoul.
[6] Cheonggyecheon Restoration is another strategic project, in-
troduced in 2002, which transformed the former Cheonggye Ex-
pressway into a five-kilometre-long urban park, with the restored 
Cheonggye Stream at its centre. Although it greatly improved the 
environmental conditions in downtown Seoul and restored part of 
the historical and cultural heritage, it has also been criticized for 
lacking environmental authenticity and contributing to the commer-
cialization of nearby areas (Križnik, 2011).
Transformation of deprived urban areas and social sustainability: A comparative study of urban regeneration and urban redevelopment
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
94
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the research fund of Hanyang Univer-
sity (HY-2017). The research was also supported by the Seed Pro-
gram for Korean Studies through the Ministry of Education of the 
Republic of Korea and the Korean Studies Promotion Service of the 
Academy of Korean Studies (AKS-2015-INC-2230013). An early draft 
was presented at the 2014 AESOP Annual Congress in Utrecht, the 
Netherlands. The author thanks Petra Očkerl for translating this arti-
cle into Slovenian and Simona Lapanja for reviewing the translation.
References
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2000) Modification of the PGM (General 
Municipal Plan) for the renovation of the industrial area of Poblenou. 
Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2006) Modificaciò del Pla especial de protecció 
del patrimoni arquitectònic històric-artístic de la Ciutat de Barcelona al 
Districte de Sant Martí. Patrimoni Industrial del Poblenou. Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2008) Guies estadístiques. Sant Martí en xifres. 
Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2012) 22@ Barcelona plan. Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2015) Anuari estadístic de la Ciutat de Barcelo-
na 2015. Barcelona.
Alderson, A. S., Beckfield, J. & Sprague-Jones, J. (2010) Inter-
city relations and globalisation: The evolution of the global ur-
ban hierarchy, 1981–2007. Urban Studies, 47(9), pp. 1899–1923. 
DOI: 10.1177/0042098010372679
Arbaci, S. & Tapada-Berteli, T. (2012) Social inequality and ur-
ban regeneration in Barcelona city centre: Reconsidering suc-
cess. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(3), pp. 287–311. 
DOI:10.1177/0969776412441110
Arxiu Històric del Poblenou (2001) El Poblenou: més de 150 anys 
d’història. Barcelona.
Assemblea de Joves del Poblenou i Assemblea d’Endavant (OSAN) del 
Poblenou (2011) Torres més altes han caigut: el model 22@ al descobert. 
Research report. Barcelona.
Balibrea, M. P. (2001) Urbanism, culture and the post-industrial city: 
Challenging the “Barcelona model.” Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies, 
2(2), pp. 187–210. DOI: 10.1080/14636200120085174
Beaverstock, J. V., Smith, R. G. & Taylor, P. J. (1999) A roster of world 
cities. Cities, 16(6), pp. 445–458. DOI: 10.1016/S0264-2751(99)00042-6
Bragado i Acín, G. (2001) La renovación del Poblenou: una aproxi-
mación urbanística al districto de actividades 22@bcn. In: Ajuntament 
de Barcelona (ed.) Barcelona, metrópolis mediterrania: Ciudad del conoci-
miento, pp. 28–34. Barcelona.
Brenner N., Marcuse P. & Mayer M. (2012) Cities for people, not for profit: 
Critical urban theory and the right to the city. London, Routledge.
Cerar, A. & Tančič, M. (2014) From reaction to initiative: Potentials of 
contributive participation. Urbani izziv, 25(1), pp. 93–106.  
DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-01-002
Charnock, G., Purcell, T. F. & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2014) City of rents: 
The limits to the Barcelona model of urban competitiveness. Inter-
national Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), pp. 198–217. 
DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12103
Cho, I. S. & Križnik, B. (2017) Community-based urban development: 
Evolving urban paradigms in Singapore and Seoul. Singapore, Springer. 
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-1987-6
Cho, M. R. (2008) Seoul-si New Town saeobui pyeonggawa daean mos-
aek. Journal of Korea Association of Real Estate Law, 17, pp. 47–56.
Choe, S. C. (2005) The impacts of globalization on the urban spa-
tial-economic system in Korea. In: Richardson, H. W. & Bae, C. H. (eds.) 
Globalization and urban development, pp. 59–78. Berlin, Springer. 
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-28351-X
Colantonio, A., Burdett, R. & Rode, P. (2014) Transforming urban econo-
mies: Policy lessons from European and Asian cities. London, Routledge.
Colantonio, A. & Dixon, T. (2011) Urban regeneration & social sustainabil-
ity: Best practice from European cities. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.
Csomós, G. & Derudder, B. (2013) European cities as command and 
control centres, 2006–11. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(3), 
pp. 345–352. DOI: 10.1177/0969776412453149
Degen, M. & García, M. (2012) The transformation of the “Barcelona 
model”: An analysis of culture, urban regeneration and governance. 
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(5), pp. 1022–
1038. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01152.x
Delgado, M. (2004) La otra cara del Fòrum de les cultures S. A. Barcelona, 
Edicions Bellaterra.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. & Brown, C. (2011) The social di-
mension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainabil-
ity. Sustainable Development, 19(5), pp. 289–300. DOI: 10.1002/sd.417
Dot Jutgla, E., Pallares-Barbera, M. & Casellas, A. (2012) Gentrificació 
productiva, desindustrialització i relocalització industrial. Treballs de la 
Societat Catalana de Geografia, 73, pp. 27–52. DOI:10.2436/20.3002.01.2
Dujon, V., Dillard, J. & Brennan, E. M. (eds.) (2013) Social sustainability. A 
multilevel approach to social inclusion. London, Routledge.
Esteban, J. (2004) The planning project: Bringing value to the periph-
ery, recovering the centre. In: Marshall, T. (ed.) Transforming Barcelona, 
pp. 111–150. London, Routledge.
Forrest, R. & Kearns, A. (2001) Social cohesion, social capital 
and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), pp. 2125–2143. 
DOI: 10.1080/00420980120087081
Grupo de trabajo sobre patrimonio del Fòrum Ribera del Besòs (2003) 
Poblenou, conjunto histórico industrial. El Poblenou, 9, p. 7.
Gugler, J. (ed.) (2004) World cities beyond the West: Globalization, devel-
opment and inequality. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hantrais, L. & Mangen, S. (1996) Method and management of cross-na-
tional social research. In: Hantrais, L. & Mangen, S. (eds.) Cross-national 
research methods in the social sciences, pp. 1–12. London, Pinter.
Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The trans-
formation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, 
71(1), pp. 3–17. DOI: 10.1080/04353684.1989.11879583
Harvey, D. (2012) Rebel cities. London, Verso.
Ho, D. C. W., Yau, Y., Law, C. K., Poon, S. W., Yip, H. K. & Liusman, 
E. (2012) Social sustainability in urban renewal: An assessment of com-
munity aspirations. Urbani izziv, 23(1), pp. 125–139.  
DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2012-23-01-005
Irvin, R. A. & Stansbury, J. (2004) Citizen participation in decision mak-
ing: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), pp. 55–64. 
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x
B. KRIŽNIK
Urbani izziv, volume 29, no. 1, 2018
95
Kang, W. (2012) New town project of Seoul, Korea: An evaluation and 
future directions. Journal of the Korean Urban Management Association, 
25(4), pp. 153–173.
Kang, Y. D. (2007) New Town land prices skyrocket 4 to 10 times higher 
than Seoul average. Yonhap News, 13 Nov. 2007.
Kim, J. (2010) Mobilizing property-based interests: Politics of policy-driven 
gentrification in Seoul, Korea. Doctoral thesis. Chicago, University of 
Illinois.
Kim, K. J. & Yoon I. S. (2003) Urban renewal and change of the 20th 
century Seoul. In: Kim, K. J. (ed.) Seoul, twentieth century: Growth & 
change of the last 100 years, pp. 543–596. Seoul, Seoul Development 
Institute.
Kim, S. H. (2013) Changes in urban planning policies and urban 
morphologies in Seoul, 1960s to 2000s. Architectural Research, 15(3), 
pp. 133–141. DOI: 10.5659/AIKAR.2013.15.3.133
Križnik, B. (2011) Selling global Seoul: Competitive urban policy and 
symbolic reconstruction of cities. Revija za sociologiju, 41(3), pp. 291–
312. DOI: 10.5613/rzs.41.3.2
Križnik, B. (2013) Changing approaches to urban development in South 
Korea, From “clean and attractive global cities” towards “hopeful com-
munities.” International Development Planning Review, 35(4), pp. 395–
418. DOI: 10.3828/idpr.2013.27
Križnik, B. (2014) Local responses to market-driven urban development 
in global cities. Teorija in praksa, 51, pp. 221–240.
Larsen, C. A. (2013) The rise and fall of social cohesion. The construction 
and de-construction of social trust in the USA, UK, Sweden and Denmark. 
Oxford, Oxford University Press.  
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681846.001.0001
L’Associació de Veïns (2003) Substitució social al Poblenou. El Poblenou, 
9, p. 5.
Lee, J. H. (2006) Dosijaejeongbi chokjineul wihan teukbyeolbeop 
silhaenge isseo mingwan partnership mosaek: Seoul-si New Townui 
gyeongheomeul tonghaeseo. In: Seoul Development Institute (ed.) 
Dosijaejeongbi chokjineul wihan teukbyeolbeop jejeonge tareun Seoul-si 
New Town saeopui baljeonbangan yeongu, pp. 53–90. Seoul.
Lee, K. M. (2009) Saengeopttaemune jubyeon teodoljiman . . . jibeun 
julgo binman neuleo. The Hankyoreh, 30 Sept. 2009.
Livingston, M., Bailey, N. & Kearns, A. (2010) Neighbourhood attach-
ment in deprived areas: Evidence from the north of England. Journal of 
Housing and the Built Environment, 25(4), pp. 409–427.  
DOI: 10.1007/s10901-010-9196-3
Manzi, T., Lucas K., Jones, T. L. & Allen, J. (eds.) (2010) Social sustain-
ability in urban areas: Communities, connectivity, and the urban fabric. 
London, Earthscan.
Marrero Guillamón, I. (2010) The struggle for representation: Cultural 
artefacts and political assemblies in the conflict of Can Ricart, Barcelo-
na. In: Degen, M. & Miles, M. (eds.) Culture and agency: Contemporary 
culture and urban change, pp. 96–116. Plymouth, University of Plym-
outh.
Marshall, T. (2000) Urban planning and governance: Is there a Bar-
celona model? International Planning Studies, 5(3), pp. 299–319. 
DOI: 10.1080/713672855
Mayer, H. & Knox, P. L. (2006) Slow cities: Sustainable places in a fast 
world. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(4), pp. 321–334.  
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2006.00298.x
Transformation of deprived urban areas and social sustainability: A comparative study of urban regeneration and urban redevelopment
Mayer, M. (2007) Contesting the neoliberalization of urban governance. 
In: Leitner, H., Peck, J. & Sheppard, E. S. (eds.) Contesting neoliberalism: 
Urban frontiers, pp. 90–115. New York, Guildford Press.
Monclús, F. J. (2003) The Barcelona model: An original formula? From 
“reconstruction” to strategic urban projects (1979–2004). Planning Per-
spectives, 18(4), pp. 399–421. DOI: 10.1080/0266543032000117514
Nahm, K. B. (2001) The spatial structure of unplanned shopping clusters 
developed along the Cheonggyechon-ro and the emerging new indus-
trial clusters. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 5(1), pp. 14–28.  
DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2001.9693485
OECD (2005) OECD Territorial reviews. Paris, OECD Publications.
OECD (2009) Promoting entrepreneurship, employment and business com-
petitiveness: The experience of Barcelona. Paris, OECD Publications.
Oliva, A. (2003) El districte d’activitats 22@. Barcelona, Aula Barcelona.
Park, C. M. (2006) Local governance and community power in Korea. 
Korea Journal, 46(4), pp. 9–32.
Roberts, P., Sykes, H. & Granger, R. (2017) Urban regeneration. 2nd ed. 
London, Sage.
Sassen, S. (2001) The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. 2nd ed. 
Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Seongdong-gu District Office (2006) Seongdong-gu tonggyeyeonbo 
2005. Seoul.
Seoul Museum of History (2009) Wangsimni: gonggan, gyeongje, mun-
hwa. Seoul.
Shin, H. B. & Kim, S. H. (2016) The developmental state, speculative ur-
banisation and the politics of displacement in gentrifying Seoul. Urban 
Studies, 53(3), pp. 540–559. DOI: 10.1177/0042098014565745
Short, J. R. (2004) Global metropolitan: Globalizing cities in a capitalist 
world. London, Routledge.
SMG (2005) Development of new towns & balanced development promo-
tion. Seoul.
SMG (2010) New Town saeob 7nyeonganui girok. Seoul.
SMG (2013) Hamkke mandeulgo hamkke nurineun Seoul-si, Juminchamy-
eohyeong jaesaengsaeob manual. Seoul.
SMG (2015a) Seoul statistical yearbook 2015. Seoul.
SMG (2015b) 2025 Seoul-si dosi jaesaeng jeollyag gyehoeg. Seoul.
Smith, N. (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global 
urban strategy. Antipode, 34(3), pp. 427–450.  
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8330.00249
Taylor, P. J. (2004) World city network, a global urban analysis. London, 
Routledge.
Uršič, M. & Križnik, B. (2012) Comparing urban renewal in Barcelona 
and Seoul: Urban management in conditions of competition among 
global cities. Asia Europe Journal, 10(1), pp. 21–39.  
DOI: 10.1007/s10308-012-0319-1
Williams, K. & Dair, C. (2007) A framework for assessing the sustainabil-
ity of brownfield developments. Journal of Environmental Planning and 
Management, 50(1), pp. 23–40. DOI: 10.1080/09640560601048275
Wolfram, M. (2018) Cities shaping grassroots niches for sustainability 
transitions: Conceptual reflections and an exploratory case study. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 173(1), pp. 11–23.  
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.044