| ¼ö·Ï»çÇ× |
µµ½Ã¼³°è(Çѱ¹µµ½Ã¼³°èÇÐȸÁö) , v.6 n.1(Åë±Ç Á¦18È£)(2005-03) |
| ÁÖÁ¦¾î |
Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹ ; ¿ëÀû·ü ; Àμ¾Æ¼ºê ; ¼¿ï½Ã ; District Unit Plan ; FAR ; Incentive ; Seoul |
| ¿ä¾à1 |
Àμ¾Æ¼ºê Á¦µµ´Â Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹÀÇ ÁöħÁؼö¿¡ µû¸¥ °ÇÃàÁÖÀÇ ºÒÀÌÀÍÀ» º¸»óÇØ ÁÜÀ¸·Î½á °ø°øÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀ» ±¸ÇöÇϱâ À§ÇÑ È¿°úÀûÀÎ °èȹ¼ö´ÜÀ¸·Î»ç¿ëµÉ ¼öÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª, ÇöÀç ¿î¿ëµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â Àμ¾Æ¼ºêÁ¦µµ´Â °úµµÇÑ Àμ¾Æ¼ºêÀǺο©, Àϰü¼º°ú ÇüÆò¼ºÀÇ ºÎÁ·, À¯¿¬¼ººÎÁ· µîÀÇ ¹®Á¦Á¡À»°¡Áö°íÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÁöÀûµÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼´Â ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¹®Á¦Á¡µéÀ» ÇØ°áÇϰí Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹÀÇ Àμ¾Æ¼ºê ¿î¿ëü°è¸¦ °³¼±Çϴ¹æ¾ÈÀ»¸ð»öÇϱâÀ§ÇÏ¿© ¼¿ï½ÃÀÇ Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹ ¿î¿µÇöȲ°ú Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹ±¸¿ª ³» °³¹ß»ç·Ê¸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °³¼±¹æ¾ÈÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ù°, ÁöħÁؼöÀÇ ³À̵µ¿Í °ø°ø±â¿©µµ¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ¿© Àμ¾Æ¼ºê ºÎ¿©´ë»óÀ» ÇÕ¸®ÀûÀ¸·Î ¼±Á¤Çϱâ À§ÇÑ ¹æ¾ÈÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, Àμ¾Æ¼ºê Àû¿ë Ç׸ñÀÇ À¯ÇüÀ» ÇʼöÇ׸ñ, ¼±ÅÃÇ׸ñ, ºÎ°¡Ç׸ñÀ¸·Î ±¸ºÐÇÏ¿© Àμ¾Æ¼ºêÀû¿ëÀÇ ¿øÄ¢À» Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÑ°, ÇöÇà Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹ ¹Ðµµ°ü·Ã Áöħ ºÐ¼®, °³¹ß»ç·ÊºÐ¼®, Àü¹®°¡ ÀÎÅÍºä µîÀ» °ÅÃÄ ÀûÁ¤ Àμ¾Æ¼ºê ºÎ¿©¹üÀ§¸¦ °ËÅäÇÑ °á°ú, ±âÁØ¿ëÀû·üÀÇ 0.2 ~ 0.5¹è, ¿ëÀû·ü 200% À̳»ÀǹüÀ§¸¦Àμ¾Æ¼ºê ºÎ¿©¹üÀ§·Î ¼³Á¤ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¹Ù¶÷Á÷ÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¼Â°, Àμ¾Æ¼ºê Àû¿ë¹æ½Ä ´ë¾È ¸¶·ÃÀ» À§ÇØ Ãß°¡Çü, Á¦°ÅÇü, È¥ÇÕÇüÀǼ¼°¡Áö ¹æ½ÄÀ» °ËÅäÇÏ¿´´Âµ¥, ±× Áß Á¦°ÅÇüÀº Çö½ÇÀûÀ¸·Î Àû¿ëÇϴµ¥ ¸¹Àº ¹®Á¦Á¡ÀÌ ÀÖ¾î Àû¿ëÇϱ⿡ ÀûÇÕÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸ç, Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹ±¸¿ªÀÇ ¼º°Ý¿¡ µû¶ó Ãß°¡Çü°ú È¥ÇÕÇüÀ» ÀûÀýÈ÷ È¥¿ëÇϴ°ÍÀ̹ٶ÷Á÷ÇѰÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¾ú´Ù. Ãß°¡ÇüÀº ±âÁØ¿ëÀû·ü°ú Çã¿ë¿ëÀû·üÀÇ Â÷À̰¡ ÀÛ°í Áö±¸´ÜÀ§°èȹ Áöħ°µµÀÇ Â÷À̰¡ Å«°æ¿ì¿¡ ÀûÇÕÇÑ ¹æ½ÄÀ̰í, È¥ÇÕÇüÀº ±âÁØ¿ëÀû·ü°ú Çã¿ë¿ëÀû·üÀÇ °£°ÝÀÌ Å©°í ºñ±³Àû µ¿ÁúÇÑ µµ½Ãȯ°æ ¹× ¿©°ÇÀ» °®´Â Áö¿ª¿¡ ÀûÇÕÇÑ ¹æ½ÄÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®µÇ¾ú´Ù. |
| ¿ä¾à2 |
Incentive system can be an effective tool to accomplish the goals of the District Unit Plan by compensating the private developers¡¯disadvantage caused by observing the guidelines. The present incentive system, however, has several problems : excessiveness, and lack of consistency, equity and flexibility. This study analysed the guidelines and development cases of District Unit Plans in Seoul to explore a better way of utilizing the incentive system, and suggested the following directions. First, the incentive items should be selected on a rational basis by evaluating the observance difficulties and public contribution. Because the amount and method of incentive should be different according to the characteristics of the items, the incentive items need to be classified into three categories: Essential items, Optional items, and Additive items. Secondly, we examined a appropriate range of incentives, and suggested an incentive of 2/10~5/10 of the Criterion FAR at 200% FAR as the maximum as a guideline for proper incentive range. Thirdly, three incentive calculation methods were examined to explore a better way of endowing incentives: Additive, Subtractive, and Hybrid method. Among them, Subtractive method could not be proposed because of its inequity problem, and Additive and Hybrid method could be used in the District Unit Plans depending on the specific conditions of the site. Additive method could be adopted if the difference between the Criterion FAR and the Permitted FAR is small and the deviation in the guidelines applied to each parcel is large, whereas the Hybrid method is considered to be a better alternative in the contrary condition. |