[Home Tech] Greenbelt: What to Consider Before Lifting Restrictions

Greenbelt Removal: An Urban Planning Issue
Prioritizing Space Utilization After Lifting Restrictions
Public Interest and Value for Future Generations Must Be Considered

Editor's NoteMore than 70% of South Koreans’ assets are tied up in real estate. A home is the most important asset for us, as well as the nearest and most comforting place. While living bound to our homes, we provide you with the essential information needed to buy and sell property. The Asia Business Daily, together with Hyosun Kim, Chief Real Estate Expert of KB Kookmin Bank, publishes [Home Tech] every three weeks to share the necessary knowledge.

A greenbelt is not land set aside simply to prevent development. Rather, it is space preserved to enable healthier urban growth. The Development Restriction Zone, introduced in 1971, was established to prevent haphazard urban sprawl and to conserve the natural environment. It is also the result of long-term urban planning aimed at preserving green corridors for all city residents to enjoy and ensuring the city's capacity for future generations. For this reason, the greenbelt should not be seen as a mere regulation, but as an asset enjoyed collectively by the entire city.

Over the past 50 years, the greenbelt policy has gone through several adjustments. Since 1999, a significant portion of development restriction zones nationwide has been lifted, and today, most are maintained around the capital region. Therefore, the main point of discussion now is not whether to lift the restriction, but upon lifting it, what principles will be used in its utilization.

Development restriction zone area in Naegok-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News

Amid the reality that Seoul’s housing supply capacity is diminishing, the greenbelt serves as a possible means of expanding supply that merits consideration. However, what matters is not the lifting itself, but how the space will be utilized after the restriction is lifted, and determining the most suitable use and scale for each location in advance. A simple numerical plan to supply housing cannot in itself enhance the city’s competitiveness. The key is not how many units are built, but what future value will be embedded in the land. For example, most of the third-generation new towns are being developed using former greenbelt zones, but due to land compensation, the establishment of wide-area transportation, environmental impact assessments, and various licensing procedures, these projects continue to take significantly longer than initially planned. This demonstrates that lifting the greenbelt alone does not result in immediate housing supply—lifting the restriction is merely a starting point for the process.

The removal of a greenbelt is not just about developing a residential site, but an urban planning issue that changes land use in the city. Comprehensive urban planning must precede any action to answer questions such as for what purpose the space will be used, how transportation and public infrastructure will connect, and what the appropriate density should be. Focus should not be only on whether to lift restrictions, but also on how the space will be planned and utilized afterward.

Public interest is also critical. The greenbelt has preserved public values such as green space, ecosystems, its role as an environmental buffer, and protection against uncontrolled development—all to the benefit of the entire city. However, once the restriction is lifted for housing supply, the area is essentially privatized within apartment complexes. While providing homes is a valuable public goal, the conversion of public assets to other uses requires an assessment of whether equivalent social benefits will result.

In the United Kingdom, changes to the greenbelt must be justified not simply by housing shortages, but by exceptional circumstances. Authorities comprehensively examine whether there are alternative sites, whether environmental damage is minimized, whether infrastructure is sufficient, and whether the plan is consistent with long-term urban strategy. This is a rigorous process of objectively explaining exactly why a site is needed, given its immediate significance and long-term importance for future generations.

We, too, must focus less on the number of housing units to be supplied and more on what is actually possible on that land, when it can be supplied, how environmental value will be preserved, and how the new development will connect to the existing city. It is also important to view the greenbelt as the city’s singular infrastructure for responding to climate crisis and as a key foundation for urban resilience. Once a greenbelt is released, it is an urban asset that is extraordinarily difficult to recover. The essential question is not how much will be lifted, but how much greater public value will result from that choice, compared to before. Beyond merely supplying tens of thousands of homes, it is now time to reflect on what kind of city we want to leave to the next generation.

Hyosun Kim, Chief Real Estate Expert of KB Kookmin Bank Star Advisory Group

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.