A Study on the Trends of Acceptance Criteria of the Relocation of Architectural Heritages and Priority Values of Monuments in Seoul

Abstract

Relocation of architectural heritage at home and abroad has been permitted only in cases where it is ‘only as a last resort, if protection cannot be achieved by any other means’, but this standard is not specifically set, causing confusion. Against this background, this study looked at the allowable standards for relocation of all architectural heritage cases relocated within Seoul. The acceptance criteria for relocation could be divided into two categories: for urban development or for restoration. Riegl’s monument value system was borrowed in order to determine under what values of the times the permission of such a move was permitted. As a result, from the 1960s to the 1990s, structures of architectural heritage were recognized as objects of conservation, but the original site (land) was not. Additionally, at this time, the ‘values of the present’ of the architectural heritage (includes both the structure and the site) was given priority over the ‘values of the past’ of it. It is after the 1990s that the ‘values of the past’ of the site have been recognized, and as it becomes closer in recent years, the relocation of architectural heritage tends to be carried out only to restore its original site. In this study, by analyzing the case of Seoul, it was revealed in what cases the relocation of architectural heritage was allowed, and the value priorities that acted on the background were analyzed. This study is representative in that Seoul is the capital and largest city of Korea. In addition, this study examines the change in perception, values, and paradigm of each cultural heritage that has been shown by various national institutions (Cultural Heritage Administration, President, Seoul Metropolitan Government) from the 1960s to the present by analyzing the criteria for permission for the act of moving. It allows interpretation and comparison.