도시건축통합성 평가모형 개발 및 비교평가: 신도시 계획을 중심으로

신도시 계획을 중심으로 도시건축 통합성 평가모형을 개발했다.

Integration, broadly defined as the coordination of disparate elements into a coherent whole, forms the theoretical foundation of this study. Building on this concept, the research defines Urban-Architectural Integration (UAI) and delineates its role within Korean urban development policy following the institutionalization of Urban-Architectural Integrated Planning (UAIP) in 2019. UAI is conceptualized as an inclusive planning approach that formulates a three-dimensional master plan from a project’s earliest stages, seamlessly unifying urban and architectural design.

In essence, it bridges macro-scale urban planning with micro-scale architectural considerations to ensure cohesion across all levels of development. A key contribution of this work is the systematization of UAI into a structured framework of 12 sub-attributes, which are typologically classified under four broad dimensions of integration: functional, social, spatial-aesthetic, and procedural. Each dimension encompasses specific attributes that capture essential aspects of holistic planning – for example, planning coherence, human-centered design, community vitality, resource efficiency, contextual consistency, and collaborative implementation.

This typological classification clarifies the inherently multi-dimensional and multi-layered nature of Urban-Architectural Integration. In other words, UAI is not a singular or one-dimensional concept, but a complex construct that operates across diverse facets of city building. These attributes collectively illustrate how urban and architectural elements can be harmonized to create cohesive, high-quality urban environments, from the design of individual buildings and public spaces to the organization of entire communities.

Using expert surveys and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the study develops a weighted evaluation model to quantify the relative importance of each integration attribute. This empirical model provides a systematic means to assess and compare the degree of urban-architectural integration achieved in different contexts. In particular, it enables a comparative evaluation between conventional new town planning content and the integration-oriented elements advocated in urban design guidelines. The UAI evaluation model is then applied to real-world case studies to demonstrate its practical utility.

It examines multiple generations of Korean new town developments – including first-, second-, and third-generation new towns. By assessing projects across different eras and governance contexts, the study illustrates how integration practices and challenges have evolved over time. The case analysis reveals notable trends, such as an increasingly stronger integration focus in the latest (third-generation) new towns compared to earlier ones, reflecting shifts in policy priorities and planning paradigms. Qualitative insights from expert interviews complement these quantitative evaluations, highlighting on-the-ground challenges in UAIP implementation.

Practitioners pointed out issues such as inter-agency coordination hurdles and the need for clearer role-sharing among stakeholders in the integrated planning process. These insights helped inform policy-level recommendations for refining UAIP, emphasizing more effective collaboration mechanisms, capacity building for integrated design, and stronger enforcement of integration guidelines. The combination of quantitative and qualitative findings provides a nuanced understanding of UAI in practice, ensuring that the evaluation framework is not only theoretically sound but also grounded in practical realities.

Overall, the findings confirm that implementing UAIP can lead to more coherent and sustainable urban environments by bridging the persistent gap between urban planning and architectural design. Integrated planning approaches encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and ensure that considerations of urban form, functionality, social needs, and implementation processes are addressed in unison rather than in isolation.

Although certain limitations are acknowledged – for instance, the relatively narrow disciplinary range of experts consulted in the AHP weighting process and the current lack of fully quantifiable outcome metrics for integration – these do not diminish the significance of the study. This research stands as a pioneering effort to conceptualize and operationalize Urban- Architectural Integration in the Korean context. By providing a clarified set of integration attributes and a structured evaluative framework, it lays an important foundation for enhancing public value creation and spatial quality in new town development.