지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2010.12
- 수록면
- 1 - 161 (161page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Proposal of the 2030 Seoul Master Plan suggested a new central place system based on the functions of centers instead of the previous hierarchy-based system from the 2020 Seoul Master Plan. Despite the restructuring of the central place system in the proposed 2030 Seoul Master Plan, “District Centers” among the proposed centers - Cores, Sub-cores, Regional Cores, District Centers - still follows their definitions and roles from the 2020 Seoul Master Plan.
Due to the centers’ functions, the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) needs to strategically designate urban centers like the Core, Sub-Core and Regional Core to enhance the global competitiveness and to deal with the issues resulted from urban sprawl. Although “District Centers” are designated for convenience of residents living and working in a certain neighborhood, they used to be designated by the Seoul Master Plan without a prior consultation with gus (district offices).
As a society changes and people tend to ask for the quality of life, urban planning, focused on large-scale developments and physical plans in a macro scale, faces a new challenge. Urban planning needs to become practical and part of everyday life. Thus, this study aimed to introduce a “Neighborhood Center” and to suggest ways to boost neighborhood centers in a real life setting in Seoul.
This study analyzed the current status and problems of District Centers and introduced the concept and function of the neighborhood centers, based on the local context. This helps to improve the quality of life by providing proper functions and facilities in a certain neighborhood.
Then it conducted case studies on planning and management of neighborhood centers from London, Tokyo, and Seattle and found out implications for the SMG. The case studies showed that the designation of neighborhood centers played an important role in providing good accessibility to facilities and proper neighborhood services for the quality of life. In addition, they recognized the importance of citizen participation in planning processes.
Finally, based on the analyses and lessons from different cities, this study practically suggested principles and processes to apply neighborhood centers. The application of the neighborhood center upon reality needs basic principles as follows: the ways to reflect residents’ demands on the neighborhood center; the standards for designation the neighborhood center based on the current situations of a neighborhood; and prior consultation with neighboring gu offices when designating the center.
This study proposes four phases of creating the neighborhood center enhancing the quality of life: setting its spatial boundary; making its plan; implementation of the plan; and its management and evaluation. To apply the neighborhood center in reality, the collaborative planning system associated with the SMG, gu offices, residents and stakeholders is necessary rather than the previous top-down approach only by the SMG. Under the collaborative planning system, gu offices are required to have more planning power and capacity to make comprehensive plans and deal with local issues.
The SMG needs to share its planning authority with gu offices and to play a coordinating role in conflicting interests between gu offices. Each gu office requires to take an initiative in making a comprehensive plan and designating centers by forming a consultative group with planning specialists, residents and local-based non-profit organization. Most of all, the citizen participation plays a crucial role in creating a vital and attractive neighborhood center. Thus, since the citizen participation is still in its infancy, it is required for the SMG and local offices to take a step-by-step approach to bring more participation and to establish an institutional foundation.
Due to the centers’ functions, the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) needs to strategically designate urban centers like the Core, Sub-Core and Regional Core to enhance the global competitiveness and to deal with the issues resulted from urban sprawl. Although “District Centers” are designated for convenience of residents living and working in a certain neighborhood, they used to be designated by the Seoul Master Plan without a prior consultation with gus (district offices).
As a society changes and people tend to ask for the quality of life, urban planning, focused on large-scale developments and physical plans in a macro scale, faces a new challenge. Urban planning needs to become practical and part of everyday life. Thus, this study aimed to introduce a “Neighborhood Center” and to suggest ways to boost neighborhood centers in a real life setting in Seoul.
This study analyzed the current status and problems of District Centers and introduced the concept and function of the neighborhood centers, based on the local context. This helps to improve the quality of life by providing proper functions and facilities in a certain neighborhood.
Then it conducted case studies on planning and management of neighborhood centers from London, Tokyo, and Seattle and found out implications for the SMG. The case studies showed that the designation of neighborhood centers played an important role in providing good accessibility to facilities and proper neighborhood services for the quality of life. In addition, they recognized the importance of citizen participation in planning processes.
Finally, based on the analyses and lessons from different cities, this study practically suggested principles and processes to apply neighborhood centers. The application of the neighborhood center upon reality needs basic principles as follows: the ways to reflect residents’ demands on the neighborhood center; the standards for designation the neighborhood center based on the current situations of a neighborhood; and prior consultation with neighboring gu offices when designating the center.
This study proposes four phases of creating the neighborhood center enhancing the quality of life: setting its spatial boundary; making its plan; implementation of the plan; and its management and evaluation. To apply the neighborhood center in reality, the collaborative planning system associated with the SMG, gu offices, residents and stakeholders is necessary rather than the previous top-down approach only by the SMG. Under the collaborative planning system, gu offices are required to have more planning power and capacity to make comprehensive plans and deal with local issues.
The SMG needs to share its planning authority with gu offices and to play a coordinating role in conflicting interests between gu offices. Each gu office requires to take an initiative in making a comprehensive plan and designating centers by forming a consultative group with planning specialists, residents and local-based non-profit organization. Most of all, the citizen participation plays a crucial role in creating a vital and attractive neighborhood center. Thus, since the citizen participation is still in its infancy, it is required for the SMG and local offices to take a step-by-step approach to bring more participation and to establish an institutional foundation.
목차
[표지]
[요약 및 정책건의]
[목차]
표목차
그림목차
[제1장 서론]
제1절 연구의 배경 및 목적
제2절 연구의 주요 내용
[제2장 서울시 중심지 지정 실태 및 생활중심 도입의 필요성]
제1절 서울시 지구중심의 현황분석
제2절 삶의 질 향상을 위한 생활밀착형 생활중심 도입의 필요성
[제3장 주민생활과 밀착한 중심지계획의 해외사례 분석]
제1절 영국 런던 : 장소만들기를 통한 중심지 활성화
제2절 일본 도쿄 : 생활권 중심의 계획 수립
제3절 미국 시애틀 : 주민참여에 의한 근린생활권 계획 수립
제4절 시사점
[제4장 생활밀착형 생활중심의 도입방안]
제1절 생활밀착형 생활중심의 도입을 위한 기본 원칙
제2절 생활권을 기반으로 한 생활중심의 도입방안
제3절 소결
[제5장 생활밀착형 생활중심의 활성화 방안]
제1절 생활밀착형 생활중심의 활성화를 위한 역할 정립
제2절 생활중심의 활성화를 위한 운영방안
제3절 생활중심의 활성화를 위한 개선방안
제4절 소결
[참고문헌]
[영문요약(Abstract)]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
생활권 이론과 생활권계획 실태 분석 연구 : 도시기본계획에서의 생활권계획을 중심으로
서울도시연구
2012 .12
-
주민참여형 안전한 마을만들기 구현방안
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2012 .08
-
도시계획과 커뮤니티계획의 융합방향 연구
정책연구
2016 .09
-
Neighborhood environments and quality of life in older adults
한국노인복지학회 학술대회
2016 .11
-
Estimating the determinants of the demographic mismatch between schools and neighborhood
Journal of Economic Research (JER)
2018 .01
-
동네관련 사회자본의 영향요인에 관한 연구
한국사회와 행정연구
2003 .11
-
읍ㆍ면ㆍ동 기능전환정책 비판 : 동네민주화의 논거ㆍ사례ㆍ개혁방향
한국사회와 행정연구
2003 .08
-
상업용부동산 투자의 결정요인
주거환경
2011 .12
-
서울시 주거환경의 질 지표와 평가에 관한 연구
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2008 .12
-
Perceived Neighborhood Conditions and Happiness of Young Japanese and Koreans
Journal of Asian Sociology
2018 .03
-
서울시 생활권계획의 활용과 운영 방향
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2017 .11
-
근린환경이 서울시 대기오염물질에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구
한국지역개발학회지
2019 .03
-
동네주민조직 유형별 사회적 자본 분포에 관한 탐색적 연구
한국지역개발학회지
2007 .12
-
새로운 도시계획 수립기법 개발 및 서울시 적용방안 연구 : 시나리오형 계획기법 중심으로
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2011 .12
-
근린공원의 이용에 따른 건강효과에 관한 연구 : 어린이대공원 U-헬스케어센터 시스템을 활용하여
주거환경
2016 .12
-
근린환경 접근성은 공동주택가격에 영향을 미치는가?: 서울시 강남3구와 강북3구의 비교를 중심으로
한국지역개발학회지
2019 .06
-
일본의 지구계획제도 활성화 사례를 중심으로 한 우리나라 지구단위계획제도 개선방안에 관한 연구
도시행정학보
2000 .12
-
세계 대도시의 중심지체계와 육성전략 비교 : 뉴욕, 런던, 도쿄
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2017 .11
-
도시 · 주거환경의 문제인식과 생활권관리 방향에 관한 연구 - 도시규모 · 수도권 여부에 따른 공무원 의견 비교를 중심으로 -
주거환경
2020 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
주민주도형 마을 만들기 참여 만족도에 따른 사회적 자본 차이 분석 : 자발적 공동체 참여 경험의 조절효과를 중심으로
노병찬
,
주덕
지방정부연구
2016
.05
도시 속 협동조합의 연대와 호혜적 마을경제 만들기 : 서울 마포구 성미산마을의 사례
이경란
협동조합네트워크
2010
.10
주민참여형 안전마을사업 전·후 거주민의 인식 및 행동의 변화 : 대구 달서구 안전마을 시범사업을 중심으로
신우화
,
신우진
국토계획
2016
.04
주민참여와 공공성 회복의 관점에서 본 ‘주민참여예산제’와 ‘마을만들기’
김명수
공공사회연구
2016
.02
마을 만들기를 위한 거주민들의 안전성 의식 조사연구
박소윤
,
이현수
한국주거학회 학술대회논문집
2013
.11
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-359-001026050