Academic society's stance on 'zero progress rate' at major public housing complexes
'Progress rate stays below 5% for 5-6 months after groundbreaking'
'Switching to actual-start standard would cause statistical confusion; reasons for delays must be examined'
As the government pushes an aggressive housing supply drive, academics are cautioning that construction progress rates alone should not be used to judge whether public housing groundbreakings are genuine. Given that significant preparation time is required after a groundbreaking — including site setup and temporary works — a low progress rate cannot by itself be taken as proof of a "paper groundbreaking," they said.
The Korea Facility Management Academic Society said Friday that "a progress rate is a cost-based indicator, and it is normal for it to be low in the early stages of construction," adding that "judging the substance of a groundbreaking by the progress rate figure alone does not reflect the reality of construction sites."
According to a government self-investigation, 58 of the 212 complexes across 108 districts that broke ground between 2023 and June this year showed a progress rate of zero percent, covering 33,000 units across 36 districts. The findings prompted criticism that groundbreaking figures had been recorded on paper without actual construction taking place.
The controversy also surfaced at last month's national audit, where Korea Land and Housing Corporation's public housing groundbreaking record came under scrutiny. Critics noted that while the target for construction-type public housing groundbreakings this year stood at 51,783 units, only 13,293 units had actually broken ground — an achievement rate of no more than 25.7% — falling well short of supply targets.
The society said that interpreting a low progress rate as evidence that no construction has taken place fails to account for a fundamental characteristic of construction sites: a substantial preparation period is needed between the official groundbreaking and the start of main works.
Lee Myung-sik, president of the Korea Facility Management Academic Society and a professor at Dongguk University, said "the process requires at least 45 days of preparation under standard procedures, including the groundbreaking notification and temporary works, and this period is counted as part of the construction period." Lee added that "the reason the contractual groundbreaking date is treated as the start of construction in the housing sector is that the construction period and the contractor's performance obligations begin from that date."
Lee also explained that progress rates are naturally low at the outset because they are calculated on a cost basis. "A progress rate is the ratio of progress payments to total construction costs, and work done on site is not reflected until it is billed as a progress payment," Lee said. "Since progress payments are made on a quarterly basis, there is a time lag between actual work and the recorded rate."
According to the society, early-stage construction is dominated by temporary and civil works, which account for a small share of total costs, meaning progress rates typically remain below 5 percent for five to six months after the contractual groundbreaking date. Once structural framing begins in earnest, the rate rises sharply.
Even after construction starts, progress rates can stall if work is suspended due to unforeseen site conditions such as contaminated soil or cultural heritage discoveries. Concluding that no construction has taken place without accounting for such circumstances does not reflect reality, the society said. For that reason, accurately identifying delayed sites requires examining the specific reasons behind each case, not just the numbers.
The society also cautioned that switching the groundbreaking indicator to an "actual-start" standard is not necessarily the answer. The timing of an actual start varies depending on which stage — excavation, foundation work or another — is used as the benchmark, and the criteria could differ from site to site depending on field conditions.
"If a rigid, desk-driven standard is imposed on construction sites where clear criteria are difficult to establish, it could create multiple problems in inspection, supervision and progress payment processes," Lee said. "It could also lead to double-counting of tallied volumes and a disconnect from past records, undermining the reliability of both statistics and government policy."
lucky@heraldcorp.com
