I'm going to Korea again in early December, guest of Korean Federation for Environmental Movement-Friends of the Earth Korea (KFEM) for a conference on conservation and development in and around the DMZ. The DMZ - Demilitarized Zone secured between North and South Korea after the Korean War - has turned into one of the most biodiverse habitats on Earth due simply to the non-interference of human beings for the last 50 years. As the two Koreas make faltering but, it appears, sincere movement toward reconciliation, there is great pressure to develop in the DMZ as a new economic free-fire zone, or perhaps, a model of ecological development. In both cases the thinking there is that the North has inexpensive labor and the south considerable development skill and capital and the two coming together could produce remarkable productivity.
Those who know Ecocity Builders on the subject know our strategy regarding environments like the DMZ is to develop somewhere else!
That is, human housing, industry and commerce has spread out physically over the landscape so much, powered by cheap energy and overmobility, there is plenty of room to develop toward existing centers and actually restore more open space by removing thin development and/or automobile infrastructure. The strategy that we sloganize as "roll back sprawl" would retrieve prime agricultural land and natural habitat from ill-advised development. Korea is a challenge in this regard since it's towns and cities are the most dense I've seen anywhere, including China outside of Hong Kong. However, I've seen lots of automobile infrastructure that if replaced by rail would free up land for open space restoration. I'm not sure to what degree the country has "mixed use" and "balanced development", which if it doesn't, would provide opportunity for considerable "roll back."
In an interesting twist, my hosts at KFEM asked me if I might like to write to the President of Korea about the country's new policy of paying local communities to accept nuclear waste. They asked if I would add my name to members of the international community advising against the policy of ever more nuclear energy development. Forty percent of their electric energy comes from nuclear plants. The Korean Government is offering $300 million to any community that provides the OK, and $5 to $10 million a year after that for maintenance, all the while saying the technology is safe.
I wrote the response I will include below, but first, a couple comments about "ecocities" in eastern Asia as they are developing now.
Last year I attended a conference called "Vision and Strategy of Ecocity Forum" in Seogwipo, a city adopting what it regards to be ecocity policies. It is, by the way, a beautiful and major Korean tourist destination on an island with a warm climate south of the peninsula about 100 miles. It even has its own sizeable waterfall on the east edge of town plunging directly into the East China Sea. The old city of Seogwipo is very compact and pedestrian oriented but the new Seogwipo is much more spread out, with a new City Hall having been recently constructed in a wide open landscape several miles outside of town and in the middle of the distance between the old city and a cluster of hotels that constitute a sort of new town of the tourist kind. A gigantic professional sports arena is in yet another locations several miles from the other "centers" and a major sports and recreation center for the local schools and teams is in yet another location, which is also up a fairly high slope and again several miles from the other use. In addition, new wide arterials have been built surrounded with franchise restaurants and gas stations straight out of the Atlanta region and with a similar climate.
What Seoguipo has for "green" is a wonderful small river restoration that has involved removing a few small buildings and planting of numerous native plants to attract native birds, insects and animals and this project seems to be coming along nicely. They are adopting the LEED sort of list of better materials and practices for single buildings and are educating the children about local native species and healthier lives. But at the land use foundation and drifting rapidly into car dependence, this is not what I'd call an ecocity and it is way out of line with an energy-constrained future.
I was also just notified by my friend Liora Adler of Gaia University of an interesting article in the Financial Times by Fiona Harvey called "The Rise of the Eco-City," October 14, 2005. (http:news.ft.com/cms/s/45ba4f90-3ccb-11da-83c8-00000e2511c8.html) It mentioned Soleri's ideas and Ecocity Cleveland but mostly was about an "ecocity" planned for Dongtan Island just north of Shanghai being planned by the international engineering consulting firm called Arup. I looked it up trying to find what it was all about and confronted copious use of the terms "sustainable," "green" and "ecocity" but no hint as to its relationship with transportation at all. Nothing clear was mentioned about basic land use issues or on diversity at close proximity or the importance of density well articulated. The one picture Arup provided of the project on their web site made it look typically automobile configured, with tall typical modern-looking buildings at the center in the usual way. It's a bit of a prejudice to decide about the project at this point but the signs are of another Seogwipo - with time running out.
And so, about your language, be careful!
Here's my letter, following through on the suggestion of my host for my next trip to Korea:

Honorable President Roh Moo-Hyun,

I have learned from my friends in Korea that your government is promoting mid- and low-level nuclear waste dumps in South Korea and promising large sums of money to communities that would accept such dumps near by. I believe there are better policies for the long-term health of your country or any other country facing an energy constrained future - as all are.

I'm sure you understand that oil production will soon peak internationally and begin draining away forever, with its price going up until it will be effectively unavailable. Nuclear energy has the enormous problem of waste disposal and safe operation in times that soon, due to permanent oil and gas unavailability, will make cutting corners the economic expedient in many parts of the world. And cutting corners is not a good idea concerning such a high-pressure low-tolerance potentially catastrophic technology as nuclear energy production.

So I can sympathize with your problem. I would suggest there is another way to power your economy, however, and that is with much better use of far less energy. Cities, towns and villages can be built with far smaller energy demands than is the current norm, a "norm" that is completely peculiar to a time when society got used to the very cheap flow of large quantities of energy, which soon will no longer be available. Cities used to be built mainly for pedestrians and in that approach we could once again built in a way to give us freedom to operate on healthy energy sources such as solar, wind and careful and modest use of biofuels. But we have to design and build that way in the first place.

That's called an "ecocity." If you are interested in learning more about the concept and state of the art, please be in touch.

As far as I know, I'm the first person to coin and use the term "ecocity" (often written eco-city for those who are new to the term). That was in 1979. Rusong Wang of the Chinese Academy of Science has also been using the term since the 1980s and has done a good job of gaining acceptance for the term in eastern Asia. From my perspective, however, I believe the term is being misused there as is "sustainable city" and "green city" here in the United States. But I would be happy to try to clarify early and current thinking in the field and suggest best examples to you if you are interested.

I will be in Korea in early December and would be honored if you would like to view a brief version of my slide presentation on ecological cities around the world - at least progress toward them, since none are in truth very close to complete as yet. I have given this presentation at conferences and in single-person lectures in 23 different countries and on all continents (except Antarctica), where I also take photographs of "best practices," which I in turn use in my presentations. You might like to assign an appropriate staff person to me for a few hours for a real in depth version, who could become an expert in the field and a good advisor to your administration on the subject.

Very best wishes and success in your future ecologically healthy energy policies,

Richard Register
President, Ecocity Builders, Inc.
P.O. Box 697, Oakland, California, USA
1 510 444-4508
www.ecocitybuilders@igc.org
ecocity@igc.org