In recent years, Busan has emerged as a popular destination for international visitors. With its port and maritime tourism infrastructure, film and music festivals, and the growing wave of K-culture, the number of global tourists has steadily increased. Against this backdrop, Busan has sought to move beyond being a tourist destination to establish itself as a world-class city of culture and the arts.

It is in this context that the city launched its bold initiative to host a branch of the internationally renowned Centre Pompidou, aiming to strengthen its brand and accelerate its rise as a global cultural hub.

Current Status

In September 2024, Busan signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Centre Pompidou. A year later, in September 2025, the City Council’s Planning and Finance Committee approved the Public Property Management Plan, marking the project’s first milestone.
 
The branch is planned for the Igidae Art Park in Nam-gu, with a total project cost of KRW 109.9 billion (approx. USD 80 million). The proposed facility will be two underground floors and three above-ground, totaling about 15,000㎡, and will include exhibition halls, artist studios, and educational spaces.

Timelines differ depending on the source: Busan projects groundbreaking in 2027 and opening in 2031, while French officials suggest 2030, and some English-language media mention 2032.

A reasonable assumption is therefore that the branch is being negotiated for opening sometime between 2030 and 2032. Meanwhile, the Pompidou’s Paris headquarters will close from 2025 to 2030 for major renovations. French audit authorities have already warned of possible cost overruns and delays—risks that could directly affect the scheduling and loan of works for Busan.
 


Arguments in Favor: Toward a Global Cultural Hub

Proponents highlight above all the international brand effect. The Pompidou name is globally recognized, and its presence in Busan is expected to attract large numbers of international visitors in a short period. With the “Centre Pompidou × Hanwha” set to open in Seoul in 2026, some argue that the two cities could form a “double anchor” strategy positioning Korea as a hub of global cultural tourism.

Advocates also point to the upgrade in cultural infrastructure, noting that the adoption of international standards in operations and curatorial expertise could raise the level of Busan’s art ecosystem. Moreover, the branch is expected to generate synergy with urban regeneration, especially if linked to the redevelopment of the North Port area, serving as a catalyst for long-term urban development that integrates tourism, business, and residential functions.
 

 
Arguments Against: The Risks of Cost, Environment, and Dependency

Critics warn of a high-cost structure. Beyond the KRW 109.9 billion (approx. USD 80 million) in construction costs, Busan will face substantial annual operating expenses, insurance fees, loan fees for artworks, and brand licensing fees—amounting to a significant long-term financial burden.

There is also strong controversy over the site. Igidae Art Park is valued for its ecological and scenic importance, and civic groups and scholars continue to raise concerns over environmental damage and limited traffic capacity.
 
Another issue is brand dependency. While the so-called “Bilbao Effect” is often cited, critics argue that this success cannot be generalized; instead, models like Naoshima, which relied on decades of collaboration among local communities, corporations, and governments, show the importance of building a sustainable local narrative.

Finally, there is the cost of social division: in July 2025, 228 professors signed a joint statement opposing the project, evidence that public debate has already grown divisive—posing risks for future public trust and governance.
 

 
Lessons from Abroad

The reason for referencing international cases is not simply to borrow success stories but to understand how cultural institutions can reshape a city’s identity and economy.

In Bilbao, the opening of the Guggenheim Museum in 1997 transformed a declining industrial city into a global tourist destination. The so-called “Bilbao Effect” was the result of iconic architecture (designed by Frank Gehry), international collections, and large-scale urban regeneration. Visitor numbers rose to millions per year, and the local economy shifted toward services and tourism. Yet Bilbao also faced challenges: high operating costs, over-reliance on the museum, and a disconnect from the local art scene.

In contrast, Naoshima in Japan developed its identity through art over decades. Since the late 1980s, the Benesse Corporation partnered with local communities to integrate museums, installations, and natural landscapes. With buildings by Tadao Ando and site-specific works by world-renowned artists, Naoshima became globally celebrated. Its success lay not in a single building or brand, but in a long-term, trust-based local narrative—earning it the reputation of a “sustainable local art ecosystem model.”

These two cases serve as direct points of comparison for Busan: Bilbao as a symbol of short-term global branding and urban renewal, and Naoshima as a model of long-term trust and local identity. Busan must take both into account if the Pompidou branch is to succeed.
 


The Path Forward: From Binary Debate to Transparent Process

The real question is not whether the project should be rushed or canceled, but whether it can proceed under transparent and rational conditions.
 
In the upcoming Master Operating Agreement (MOA), critical details—loan fees, insurance, intellectual property rights, frequency of exhibitions, and quotas for local artist participation—must be disclosed to the public. The city should also present a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) simulation that covers both construction and 10–15 years of operating costs, and share this with citizens.

Environmental and site-related issues must be reviewed thoroughly, including alternative sites, with proper traffic and environmental impact studies and public hearings. At the same time, Busan must institutionalize a local narrative strategy, guaranteeing that a set proportion of exhibitions each year are dedicated to local themes and artists, while international shows serve as global anchors.
 
Moreover, Busan must prepare risk management plans in case delays at the Paris headquarters disrupt the loan of works. An independent evaluation board consisting of civic representatives, academics, and financial experts should be established to annually assess visitor demographics, length of stay, local artist participation, and educational and research outcomes.
 


Conclusion

For Busan, attracting a major international brand represents an enticing path toward becoming a global cultural city. Yet the project inevitably involves financial burdens, environmental risks, and social divisions.
 
What is needed now is not political haste but a commitment to transparent contracts, long-term financial review, environmental and site reassessment, and a content strategy rooted in Busan’s own narrative. If these conditions are met, the Pompidou in Busan can avoid becoming a mere franchise and instead stand as an authentic cultural face of Busan.
 
If neglected, however, the project risks becoming a costly experiment in city marketing with limited returns. More fundamentally, these concerns stem from the fact that Busan pushed the project forward in a top-down and unilateral manner from the start.
 
It is now essential to return to inclusive dialogue and consensus-building with all stakeholders and citizens. Only through transparent, objective, and rational debate can Busan chart a course that ensures its place in the global cultural landscape over the coming decades.