A Case Study of the Spatial Application of Regional Cultural Elements in Urban Parks —Focusing on Tang Paradise in Xi’an and Dongdaemun History & Culture Park in Seoul

As urbanization accelerates, rapid changes in urban space improve residents’ living environments while gradually weakening some regional cultural characteristics. A review of the literature shows that existing studies mainly address the extraction and expression of regional cultural elements and the creation of place identity. These studies provide theoretical and practical references for incorporating regional culture into urban parks. However, further analysis is needed of how abstract cultural meanings become concrete spatial forms and how spatial layouts are linked to experience through design. Comparing cases from different cultural backgrounds is therefore necessary to identify similarities and differences in the spatial application of cultural elements. This study examines Tang Paradise in Xi’an and Dongdaemun History & Culture Park in Seoul to analyze, through comparison, how regional cultural elements are transformed and applied to urban park spaces. Using five analytical indicators, it compares their expression in spatial layouts, architecture, landscape facilities, and associated experiences. It explores how regional culture is integrated with contemporary park spaces in different cultural contexts, providing a reference for cultural continuity and application in urban park landscape design.

Regional culture develops within specific natural environments, historical processes, and social life. It includes local history, traditional arts, folk activities, architectural forms, ways of life, and collective memory[1]. In landscape design, regional cultural elements are not simply copied from traditional symbols. Rather, cultural content is reorganized and translated into spatial forms, materials, colors, facilities, planting, narrative routes, and activities. Liu et al. suggest that regional cultural symbols can be expressed in multiple dimensions, including plan, elevation, and space[2], indicating that cultural transformation involves both visual form and spatial organization.

Modern urban parks have evolved from public facilities providing greenery and recreation into integrated spaces combining ecological, social, cultural, educational, and public activities. Korea’s urban park system gradually developed after the 1960s, and the Park Act of 1967 established institutional regulation of parks as urban planning facilities[3]. Cultural functions in contemporary urban public spaces should extend beyond static display to experiences formed through visitor routes, heritage displays, public art, festivals, performances, and everyday activities. Carmona argues that the quality of public space is influenced by form, function, social activity, perception, and management[4]. Cultural expression should therefore be coordinated with park accessibility, patterns of use, and publicness.

This study establishes five analytical indicators by synthesizing previous research on the selection of regional cultural resources and the spatial expression of symbols[1][2] with studies of spatial organization and user experience in public space[4]. The indicator ‘cultural resource identification’ is derived from discussions of local history, art, and collective memory in regional culture research[1]. ‘Cultural elements’ and ‘spatial transformation’ are drawn from research on the multidimensional expression of regional cultural symbols[2]. Discussions of spatial form, functional organization, social activity, and perceptual experience in public space research[4] provide the basis for ‘spatial integration’ and ‘modes of experience communication.’ Based on these studies, the application of regional cultural elements in urban parks is organized into five analytical indicators following the sequence ‘cultural resources—cultural elements—spatial expression—functional integration—public experience.’ This framework is used to compare Tang Paradise in Xi’an and Dongdaemun History & Culture Park in Seoul.

This study uses a literature review and comparative case study. The procedure comprises four stages: reviewing research on regional culture, urban parks, and cultural continuity; deriving five analytical indicators from the literature; collecting information from the cases’ official websites, government documents, research papers, spatial images, and facility information, and classifying it according to the five indicators; and comparing the cases within the common framework to identify types of cultural place-making. Publicly available information and spatial expressions serve as the main evidence. No causal judgments are made about user satisfaction or the effectiveness of cultural communication.

Both cases are located in large cities with abundant historical and cultural resources, place regional culture at the core of park development, and combine cultural display with public activities. They are therefore comparable in functional terms. Their cultural resources nevertheless differ: Tang Paradise mainly draws on historical knowledge, art, and everyday culture associated with Chang’an during the Tang dynasty, whereas Dongdaemun History & Culture Park draws on archaeological remains at the site and urban memories of the former stadium. These cases allow comparison of spatial applications under different cultural resource conditions within a common framework. Their specific characteristics and types are identified after the case analysis.

This study primarily collects documentary and online materials. First, journal articles, theses, and specialist books were retrieved from CNKI, DBpia, RISS, and Google Scholar using the keywords ‘regional culture,’ ‘urban parks,’ ‘cultural elements,’ ‘landscape design,’ and ‘cultural continuity’ to establish the theoretical basis of the indicators. Information on Tang Paradise in Xi’an and Dongdaemun History & Culture Park in Seoul was then collected from official websites, public government documents, master plans, and publicly available photographs to organize the case analyses. The materials were classified under five indicators: cultural resource identification, cultural element extraction, spatial transformation, spatial integration, and modes of experience. Basic park information was cross-checked across sources to improve the accuracy and reliability of the comparison.

Cultural resources: The park draws primarily on the culture of Chang’an during the Tang dynasty and the High Tang period, covering architecture, poetry, ritual, tea culture, music and dance, folklore, and ways of life. Its cultural basis lies in the systematic selection and thematic organization of content from a particular historical period, rather than the complete preservation of a single heritage site[5]. Cultural elements: The design extracts recognizable content such as Tang architectural forms, traditional patterns, historical stories, poetic imagery, dress and ritual, and folk activities. These are organized into themes including imperial culture, women’s culture, poetry, and tea culture. Spatial transformation: Cultural content is mainly translated into Tang-style building groups, water features, axes and courtyards, sculptures, themed paving, exhibitions, and performances. Key buildings such as Ziyun Tower, together with the lake, create a visual focus with a ceremonial character. Spatial integration: Different cultural themes are linked through zoning and continuous visitor routes. Cultural display, sightseeing, rest, and performance spaces form a complete sequence of themed exploration. Cultural content is thus expressed as a reconstructed setting extending throughout the park. Modes of experience: Visitors encounter Tang culture mainly through themed tours, live landscape performances, festivals, cultural displays, and consumption experiences. The experience emphasizes concentrated presentation and immersive participation. Overall, the case exhibits ‘spatial reconstruction through cultural representation.’

Cultural resources: The park’s core resources originate from the site itself. Excavations in 2008–2009 uncovered sections of Seoul City Wall, Igansumun Water Gate, and Joseon-period architectural and everyday-life remains. Its cultural setting is therefore based on the preservation and display of surviving historical remains. Dongdaemun History Museum, Dongdaemun Stadium Memorial, archaeological display areas, and Igansumun Water Gate together present the site’s development from earlier historical periods to modern times[6][8]. Cultural elements: Rather than predetermining a historical style, the design selects display subjects from the city wall, water gate, archaeological remains, excavated artifacts, stadium facilities, and place memories. The cultural elements have strong in-situ and temporally layered characteristics. Spatial transformation: Cultural resources become spatial content through heritage conservation, in-situ display, reburial or exposure of archaeological remains, museum exhibitions, interpretive signs, and landscape walkways. The emphasis is on making the remains visible and understandable rather than imitating historical forms. Spatial integration: Historical remains, the contemporary park, Dongdaemun History Museum, Dongdaemun Stadium Memorial, and DDP public spaces are connected, embedding archaeological heritage within contemporary urban public life. Historical and contemporary layers remain distinct while being linked through pedestrian systems and open spaces. Modes of experience: Visitors encounter the site’s history through heritage visits, museum exhibitions, digital information, and everyday recreation. Cultural experiences are exploratory, educational, and part of daily life. Overall, the case exhibits ‘spatial regeneration through heritage conservation.’

Comparison using the same indicators shows that both cases use regional culture as the basis for spatial organization and experience design, while differing in cultural resource authenticity, transformation methods, and pathways of public engagement.

The comparison indicates that the spatial application of regional cultural elements follows multiple approaches and is strongly influenced by the nature of cultural resources. For projects based mainly on historical knowledge and cultural imagery, with relatively limited surviving remains, thematic representation can create a recognizable identity through architecture and narrative activities. However, excessive accumulation of symbols and the reduction of history to entertainment should be avoided. At sites with surviving heritage and layered urban memories, conservation and regeneration can support historical continuity, while clear interpretation systems and public activities can improve the legibility of heritage. Both cases extend cultural expression beyond individual objects into spatial layouts, routes, exhibitions, and activity organization. This process emphasizes relationships between stages: extracted elements should be traceable to their cultural sources, spatial forms should support cultural communication, and modes of experience should align with the park’s public functions. The typology proposed here is based on two representative cases and reflects two spatial characteristics, rather than a comprehensive classification of all culturally themed urban parks. Operational mechanisms, user evaluations, and long-term cultural communication effects have not been examined empirically. Future research could expand the case sample to further test the generalizability and practical effectiveness of the identified elements.

This study compares Tang Paradise in Xi’an and Dongdaemun History & Culture Park in Seoul using five analytical indicators, examining how regional cultural elements are transformed from cultural resources into urban park spaces. Both cases incorporate regional culture into the physical environment and public activities through cultural resource identification, cultural element extraction, spatial transformation, spatial integration, and experience communication. Their different resource bases nevertheless produce two distinct spatial characteristics. Drawing on knowledge and imagery of High Tang culture, Tang Paradise exemplifies ‘spatial reconstruction through cultural representation’ through Tang-style architecture, thematic zones, landscape narratives, and performances. Based on surviving heritage and urban memory, Dongdaemun History & Culture Park exemplifies ‘spatial regeneration through heritage conservation’ through in-situ preservation, display and interpretation, and connections between old and new spaces. The former demonstrates the potential for concentrated expression of a cultural theme, while the latter demonstrates the coexistence of historical layers and everyday public space. Design should preserve and sustain existing historical and cultural resources while responding creatively to contemporary aesthetics and public life, creating urban park landscapes with regional identity and cultural meaning. The incorporation of regional culture into urban parks can thus be understood as a continuous process of transformation, rather than merely the decorative use of traditional symbols. Depending on the nature of cultural resources, design can establish relationships among cultural authenticity, spatial function, artistic expression, and public experience. Because this study examines a limited number of cases and relies mainly on literature and publicly available information, its findings require further testing across more regions, parks of different scales, and user surveys. This research was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea through the fourth-phase Brain Korea 21 (BK21 FOUR) program.