Slope Housing design by OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

© OMA

Project: Slope Housing
Location: Busan, Korea
Architects: OMA

During the Korean War, Busan became a city of refuge. With the population surging, the hillsides were the only land left to settle. Refugees built makeshift homes from salvaged materials, forming improvised villages that evolved into vibrant, tightly knit neighborhoods – uniquely adapted to the slope. Born of crisis, they became a signature of Busan’s landscape and spirit. Today, those same neighborhoods sit on prime ground, but steep lanes and aging structures no longer meet contemporary needs. The default market response – the tower estate – delivers comfort and efficiency but flattens terrain and suppresses the very street life that once defined these hillsides. Is there an alternative?

This project, developed with the Busan Architecture Festival (BAF) and the Department of Housing and Architecture, presents two case studies for redevelopment. We propose an adaptable method, translating the strengths of informal neighborhoods into a new model for lively streets and coherent skylines. Two contrasting sites have been selected: Yeongju, embedded in central Busan, and Anchang, isolated between forested ridgelines. Their differences make them ideal for testing a reproducible approach that balances and mediates their existing micro-grain urban fabric with the contemporary macro-scale estate.

We began not with buildings, but with circulation. To supplement the government’s land-use plan, we choreographed a network of pedestrian corridors linking key public nodes – bus stops, monorail stations, schools, parks, markets, trailheads, temples – so that daily life could flow across each slope. This framework revealed natural ‘pocket neighborhoods’, shaped by adjacency, gradient, access, and view. Within each pocket, trade-offs had to be negotiated: slope retention vs. vehicle access; views vs. daylight; shared landings vs. granular entries. The aim was not to reject towers but to rebalance them among a richer composition of types.

Four categories emerged: terrace housing, urban villas, row housing, and towers. We tested them across each site for slope, solar access, orientation, and area. Where multiple types were viable, we layered in qualitative filters: adjacency to public space, access gradient, viewshed, and visual variety. This allowed each site to suggest its own composition, shaped by terrain, light, and social logic. Types were placed where they perform best: towers on high points, villas at urban centers, row houses along ridges, terraces embedded in steep pockets. The result is not a uniform solution, but a calibrated patchwork of interlocking zones. Instead of fences and parking decks, neighborhoods are structured around stairs, landings, terraces, and small squares. Circulation becomes social. Outdoor space becomes communal. Life on the hillside becomes visible again.

Source: OMA
m i l i m e t d e s i g n – w h e r e t h e c o n v e r g e n c e o f u n i q u e c r e a t i v e s