The construction of artificial intelligence data centers, the core infrastructure behind Korea's three mega-projects, is being held back by inconsistent local government rules and resident opposition. According to a Seoul Economic Daily report on the 25th, all 16 data centers that went through building-permit procedures in Seoul over the past five years have run into obstacles of one kind or another. Geumcheon-gu required approval from a majority of residents within a 200-meter radius for new construction, while Yeongdeungpo-gu moved to restrict sites in Class 2 and Class 3 general residential zones. Incheon and Gwacheon have also imposed site restrictions and mandatory separation distances, in a sign that data center regulation is spreading across the entire greater Seoul area.
The problem is that there is no unified government-level guideline, even as demand for data centers surges. That is why local governments are each pouring out their own conflicting rules, and why conflicts between operators and local communities are escalating. Even data centers already under way face having to go back to square one under the new rules. This can only result in permitting delays and stalled projects, ultimately leaving Korea behind in the race for speed in data center construction.
The government plans to invest 1 quadrillion won by 2035 to build an additional 10 gigawatts of AI data center capacity. But if data center construction itself becomes difficult amid a thicket of regulations and resident opposition, the vision of becoming one of the world's top three AI powers will remain an empty slogan. As of last year, Korea had 165 data centers, far short of the United States (5,427), Germany (529), China (449) and Japan (222). Even at full speed it would be hard to catch up with competitors, and adding regulatory shackles would put AI leadership out of reach altogether.
The government should first unify the differing data center construction rules across local governments to establish a single standard. Doing so would resolve business uncertainty and improve the predictability of national infrastructure policy. It should also devise reasonable incentive measures at the national level to minimize resident opposition and community conflict. The precedent of local governments that once opposed nuclear plants later competing to host new reactors is worth noting. The government should keep in mind that streamlining regulations and securing resident consent are the gateway to AI leadership, and should actively engage in dialogue and communication with local governments.
