As architects, we often critique designs, but how often do we share those evaluations openly?
Today, I want to engage with you on a project near a significant cultural landmark in South Korea: the historical Jinjuseong fortress in Jinju, Gyeongsangnam-do. This fortress, dating back to the late Goryeo period, is a cornerstone of Korea’s architectural heritage and the site of one of the three great victories of the Imjin War.
Recently, a new welcome facility was built near this iconic location. Spanning 19,870 square meters with a budget of approximately 72.85 million USD, the project includes an underground parking lot with 149 spaces, park support facilities, and a historical park. Yet, it has stirred public debate, with some residents even calling for its demolition. After reviewing its design and layout, I’d like to share my reflections—and hear your thoughts too.
Does the Architectural Style Align with Jinjuseong?
Jinjuseong’s traditional architecture seamlessly integrates with its natural surroundings, featuring intricate geometric forms that reflect Korea’s historical design sensibilities. In stark contrast, the new facility’s bold rectangular and triangular shapes feel disconnected. This mismatch between the fortress’s timeless aesthetic and the facility’s modern language creates a visual clash that disrupts the harmony of the site. Could more thoughtful design choices have bridged the gap between these two distinct styles?
Is the Slope and Glass Façade Effectively Designed?
The facility’s sloped structure and glass façade raise important questions. The glass wall, instead of framing views of Jinjuseong and its surrounding river, faces the street and site edge—missing an opportunity to connect visitors with the historic landmark. Similarly, the sloped seating overlooks the park but not the fortress itself. Does this orientation enhance the visitor experience, or does it fail to honor the site’s historical significance?
How Should Modern Needs Be Balanced with Context?
The underground parking solution, while practical for preserving the site’s surface, feels underutilized. Could it have been better integrated with landscape elements to create a more welcoming and aesthetically pleasing experience? The current approach prioritizes functionality but may lack the sensitivity such a historic site demands.
What’s Your Take?
These are my initial reflections on the project’s approach to blending modern architecture with historical context. I believe projects like this deserve a deeper discussion: how do we design in ways that honor heritage while embracing the future?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. What works? What could have been done differently? Let’s explore how modern interventions can respectfully coexist with cultural landmarks. Your insights are invaluable—please share!
