초록 ▼

1) 부산시 연안 현황조사
- 부산시 해안선의 길이는 총 431.20km 지형적으로 동해안과 남해안이 접해 있으며 해안선의 입•출입이 많은 리아스식 해안의 특성을 가지고 있음
- 부산시 16개 구(군)(I5개 구, 1개 군) 중 10개 구(군)(9개 구, 1개 군)이 해안에 접해 있음
2) 워터프런트 조성 후보지 선정
- 연안정비사업, 연안개발계획을 검토하여 14군데 후보지 선정하고 1차 과제적합성 평가, 2차 평가요인별 가중치 평가를 통해 조성 후보지 선정
- 다대포해수욕장 1사장(부산광역시 사하구 다대

1) 부산시 연안 현황조사
- 부산시 해안선의 길이는 총 431.20km 지형적으로 동해안과 남해안이 접해 있으며 해안선의 입•출입이 많은 리아스식 해안의 특성을 가지고 있음
- 부산시 16개 구(군)(I5개 구, 1개 군) 중 10개 구(군)(9개 구, 1개 군)이 해안에 접해 있음
2) 워터프런트 조성 후보지 선정
- 연안정비사업, 연안개발계획을 검토하여 14군데 후보지 선정하고 1차 과제적합성 평가, 2차 평가요인별 가중치 평가를 통해 조성 후보지 선정
- 다대포해수욕장 1사장(부산광역시 사하구 다대1동)이 조성 후보지로 선정됨
3) 랜드마크 조성 후보지 선정
- 부산신항 주변 해상과 육상에서 인지성과 상징성이 좋은 14군데 후보지를 선정하고 1차 과제적합성 평가, 2차 평가요인별 평가를 통해 조성 후보지 선정
- 가덕도 고직말 정상부가 조성 후보지로 선정됨
4) 워터프런트 및 랜드마크 유형분류
- 해안 특성과 이용자 특성에 따라 워터쓰런트 유형분류
- 랜드마크 유형은 형태 특징에 따라 상징조형물형, 건축물형, 구조물형, 단지형으로 분류
5) 워터프런트 기본구상
- 전문가 수요조사를 통해 이용자 특성, 개발유형, 도입기능 및 시설 분석
- 체험형, 휴게형 워터프런트 계획, 어른과 아이가 함께 즐길 수 있는 워터프런트 구상
6) 랜드마크 기본구상
- 전문가 수요조사를 통해 이용자 특성, 개발유형, 도입기능 및 시설 분석
- 껍질을 깨고 도약하는 부산의 진취적인 미래상을 표현
- 전망대와 상설전시시설을 갖춘 건축물형 랜드마크 계획

(출처 : 보고서 요약서 5p)

Abstract ▼

IV. R & D Results
1. R & D Results

A. Current State of Busan City Coast Area
◦ Busan City coastline is a total 431.20km long and its east coast and south coast are adjacent geographically with a sawtooth coastline.
◦ A coast area refers to a land area within 500m from the coastline i

IV. R & D Results
1. R & D Results

A. Current State of Busan City Coast Area
◦ Busan City coastline is a total 431.20km long and its east coast and south coast are adjacent geographically with a sawtooth coastline.
◦ A coast area refers to a land area within 500m from the coastline in general and that within lkm from the coastline if there are industrial or harbor facilities in it according to the 'Coast Area Management Act.’
◦ Although there is no description clearly expressing the scope of waterfront, generally the scope of coast area is also applied to waterfront.
◦ 10 gus(guns) (9 gus, 1 gun) are adjacent to sea among 16 gus(guns) (15 gus, 1 gun) in Busan
◦ 74% of a total area of Busan belongs to coast areas and 51.9% of a total population lives in Gus(guns) adjacent to the coast areas and sea
◦ East Busan zone consists of natural coastlines with relatively well-preserved natural geographic features.
◦ Middle Busan zone is mainly used as an urban coast for residential, industrial and harbor sites through land reclamation except several areas.
◦ West Busan zone has been constantly changed from the aspect of topography such as development and decay of sandbank since River Nakdong’s estuary is included in this zone and many regions has well preserved their natural geographic features.
◦ Only 39.4% of a total coastline in Busan is natural coastline, relatively small considering the nation's average of 63.4%
◦ Most of Busan's coast areas are developed as harbors, military complexes and industrial facilities with limited access from citizens except beaches or coast trails and a low level of usage as hydrophilic space.

B. Selection of candidate sites for the Waterfront
◦ Directions are set up to select candidate sites for the Waterfront through discussion with Busan City
◦ Candidate sites are selected, considering possible link with Busan City's other coast development plans and coast renovation projects.

(1) Condition of Selecting Candidates
◦ Short and long-term viable places
◦ Place whose utilization value is high for residents and local economy
◦ Places except harbors, which are not restricted by special regulations
◦ Places possible to be linked with regional urban plans/development plans
◦ Places whose natural, social, historical and cultural resources can be utilized
◦ Places that can be developed along with coast renovation projects
◦ Places in which environmental improvement effects of development are expected

(2) Candidate Review
◦ 10 regions are selected out of 25 second coast renovation projects
◦ 4 regions are selected out of Busan City's 45 coast development plans
◦ A total 14 sites are selected as primary candidate sites

(3) 1st Assessment
◦ 5 second candidate sites are selected out of 14 first ones through conformity assessment with assignments

(4) 2nd Assessment
◦ Weight assessment by assessment elements is conducted for 5 second candidate sites to set up priority
◦ Weight by assessment items is decided through a survey of 40 experts (Industry： 15，relevant officials： 20，academy： 6)
◦ Priority for each candidates site is decided by assessing secondary candidate sites with assessment items in a scale of 1 through 5 points and multiplying by weight for each item to get a total value. A higher total value gets a higher priority.
◦ As a result of the assessment, Beach Dadaepo (Beach 1) is selected as the 1st place with a total value of 3.759
◦ 2nd place： Jongri Harbor, 3rd place： Mipo Harbor, 4th place: Songjeong Beach 5th place： Sinpyeong-dong~Dadae-dong (Riverside Road)

C. Selection of candidate sites for the Landmark
◦ Directions are set up to select candidate sites for the Landmark through discussion with Busan City.
◦ The areas near the New harbor are selected as candidate sites for the Landmark upon the request from Busan City after assessment

(1) Condition of Selecting Candidates
◦ Short and long-term viable places
◦ Place whose representation and recognition is high both in land and ocean.
◦ Places except harbors, which are not restricted by special regulations
◦ Place with sufficient available lands
◦ Places whose effects on environment are low

(2) Candidate Review
◦ The areas near the Busan New Harbor are selected through discussion with Busan City
◦ 14 candidate sites are selected and assessed among the sites with good symbolization and recognition both in land and ocean.

(3) 1st Assessment
◦ 6 second candidate sites are selected out of 14 first ones through conformity assessment with assignments
◦ secondary candidate sites： Guksubong, Cheonsumal Gogikmal, Honamdo, Todo, Hangweol

(4) 2nd Assessment
◦ 6 second candidate sites are assessed with assessment items such as recognition, symbolization, access, lookout, linkage, construction and scalability.
◦ A total score is calculated for each candidate and each assessment item in a scale of 1 through 5 points
◦ As a result of the assessment, Gogikmal is selected as the 1st place with a total value of 31.
◦ 2nd place: Cheonsumal 3rd place'Honamdo, 4th place： Todo, Hangweol

D. Category of Waterfront and Landmark types

(1) Category of waterfront types
◦ Waterfront types are categorized by development types, purposes of development, plane structure, characteristics of coast and characteristics of users.
◦ This research conducts demand survey according to 'category of waterfront by coastal characteristics' and 'category of waterfront by characteristics of users' and establishes the type of waterfront.

(2) Category by Landmark Types
◦ Landmark types are categorized by symbolized sculpture, architecture, structure and complex types.

E. Waterfront Plan
◦ Design waterfront development direction and functions through survey on demand from experts and discussion with related authorities (Busan City, municipal government)

(1) Survey on demands from experts
◦ Conduct a demand survey for 40 experts (15 from industries, 17 from government officials, 8 from academic societies) in regards to the characteristics of visitors, waterfront development type and facilities to be built.
◦ The survey result shows that the citizens in Busan, family visitors and people looking for relaxation should be considered as the target visitor types for the site of waterfront development (Beach Dadaepo 1).
◦ In regards to the type of waterfront development, responds to 'experience type' according to the coastal characteristics and the responds to 'relaxation type' according to users' characteristics are the most replied answers.
◦ In regards to the facilities to be built, the most respondents said outdoor venues, mud flat experience place, camping site, theme park and small shops are preferred.

(2) Development directions
◦ Appropriate for Busan City plan/tourism plan
◦ Developed by using natural environment as much as possible
◦ Developed as a space where adults and children can enjoy together
◦ Realizable small scale and local development rather than large scale redevelopment
◦ Available through coastal maintenance project and coastal restoration project

(3) Waterfront Master Plan (Proposal)
◦ Development minimizing destruction of existing environment
◦ Place where adults and children can enjoy, experience and be relaxed together

F. Landmark plan
◦ Design landmark development direction and functions through survey on demand from experts and discussion with related authorities (Busan City, municipal government)

(1) Survey on demands from experts
◦ Conduct a demand survey for 40 experts (15 from industries, 17 from government officials, 8 from academic societies) in regards to the characteristics of visitors, landmark development type and facilities to be built.
◦ The survey result shows that the citizens in Busan, family visitors and tourists for sightseeing on port landscape should be considered as the target visitor types when building the landmark.
◦ Replies to make it as 'architecture' for the type of landmark development were the most answers
◦ In regards to the functions, the most respondents said the main function should be 'viewpoint function' and the supplementary function should be 'learning function.'

(2) Direction of the development
◦ Environmentally friendly development minimizing damage on geographical features
◦ Facilities should be viewed from the new port and the Geoga Bridge which will be new gateway of Busan
◦ Build a small scale park harmonized with nature
◦ Adopt facilities to view, study and experience the port

(3) Landmark master plan (Proposal)
◦ Theme
“Feast of inherent light”
◦ The image of the new port's potential power is expressed as the shape and lighting of architecture by symbolizing the progressive future image of Busan breaking the shell and taking off.
◦ Adopt observation space for the port and ocean landscape and experience/learning space for the port
◦ Build a small scale park with promenade and square for tourists and local residents to utilize the space.

(출처 : SUMMARY 27p)

목차 Contents

• 표지 ... 1
• 제출문 ... 2
• 보고서 요약서 ... 4
• 요약문 ... 6
• SUMMARY ... 22
• 목차 ... 40
• 표목차 ... 42
• 그림목차 ... 48
• 제1장 연구개요 ... 53
• 1.1. 연구목적 ... 55
• 1.2. 연구필요성 ... 55
• 1.3. 연구추진전략 및 방법 ... 57
• 1. 연구내용 및 범위 ... 57
• 2. 연구추진전략 및 체계 ... 59
• 제2장 부산 연안지역 현황 ... 61
• 2.1. 연안공간의 개념 ... 63
• 1. 연안의 개념 ... 63
• 2. 워터프런트 개념 ... 65
• 2.2. 부산 연안지역 특성 ... 68
• 1. 지형적 특성 ... 68
• 2. 사회적 특성 ... 82
• 제3장 후보지 선정 ... 97
• 3.1. 워터프런트 개발 후보지 ... 99
• 1. 후보지 선정 방법 ... 99
• 2. 후보지 평가 ... 100
• 3.2. 랜드마크 조성 후보지 ... 117
• 1. 후보지 선정 방법 ... 117
• 2. 후보지 평가 ... 118
• 3. 후보지 별 랜드마크 유형 ... 124
• 제4장 국내·외 동향 및 사례 ... 127
• 4.1. 관련 계획 ... 129
• 1. 상위계획 ... 129
• 2. 부산시 상위계획 ... 136
• 3. 부산시 해양개발계획 ... 148
• 4.2. 관련 법제도 검토 ... 158
• 1. 관련 법규 ... 158
• 2. 관련 지침 ... 166
• 3. 조성 시설별 관련 법규 ... 167
• 4.3. 국내외 사례조사 ... 168
• 1. 워터프런트 사례조사 ... 168
• 2. 랜드마크 사례 ... 182
• 제5장 워터프런트 및 랜드마크 유형분석 ... 189
• 5.1. 워터프런트유형 ... 191
• 1. 워터프런트 유형분류 ... 191
• 2. 친수환경 형태에 따른 분류 ... 196
• 5.2. 랜드마크 유형 ... 208
• 1. 랜드마크 유형분류 ... 208
• 제6장 워터프런트 개발 기본구상 ... 213
• 6.1. 대상지 현황 ... 215
• 1. 위치 ... 215
• 2. 인문·사회적 환경 ... 216
• 5. 사업대상지 현황 및 여건 ... 223
• 6. 사하구 장기발전 기본계획(사하구, 2007) 검토 ... 227
• 6.2. 워터프런트 개발 수요조사 분석 ... 228
• 1. 수요조사 개요 ... 228
• 2. 수요조사 결과 분석 ... 229
• 6.3. 워터프런트 기본구상 ... 237
• 1. 개요 ... 237
• 제7장 랜드마크 조성 기본구상 ... 261
• 7.1. 대상지 현황 ... 263
• 1. 위치 ... 263
• 2. 지리환경 ... 264
• 3. 인문·사회적 환경 ... 271
• 4. 문화유적지 및 관광명소 ... 278
• 5. 가덕도 장기발전계획(강서구, 2007) 검토 ... 280
• 7.2. 랜드마크 조성 수요조사 분석 ... 282
• 1. 수요조사 개요 ... 282
• 2. 수요조사 결과 분석 ... 283
• 7.3. 랜드마크 기본구상 ... 289
• 1. 개요 ... 289
• 3. 추진방안 ... 312
• 참고문헌 ... 315
• 부록 ... 321
• 부록-1 : 부산시 협의-1 (2011. 06. 14 회의록) ... 323
• 부록-2 : 부산시 협의-2 (2011. 08. 02 회의록) ... 325
• 부록-3 : 설문조사 : 부산 해안지역 Waterfront 개발 최적지 선정을 위한 평가항목 가중치 부여 설문지 ... 327
• 부록-4 : 설문조사 : 부산 해안지역 Waterfront 개발 및 Landmark 조성에 관한 설문 ... 331
• 끝페이지 ... 336