Report on the Closure of “World Park” Public Space and its Implications for Sustainable Urban Development in Philadelphia

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the recent enclosure of the “World Park” public art installation at 12th and Filbert Streets, Philadelphia. The action, taken by the Marriott Downtown hotel, represents a significant setback for the city’s progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). By examining the context of the closure, this report evaluates its impact on public access, social inclusion, economic vitality, and urban governance, offering recommendations aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

1.0 The Contradiction of Urban Development Goals: Public Space and Cultural Heritage

The fencing of the World Park sculpture directly undermines international and municipal goals for creating inclusive and accessible urban environments. The installation, a product of the city’s Percent for Art Program, was designed as a public asset, contributing to the cultural fabric and social vitality of the Market East corridor.

1.1 Violation of SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The closure is in direct opposition to specific targets within SDG 11.

• Target 11.7: This target calls for universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible public spaces. The erection of a fence denies access to all members of the public, effectively privatizing a public-facing amenity and failing to provide a safe and inclusive environment.
• Target 11.4: This target focuses on protecting and safeguarding the world’s cultural heritage. The sculpture has fallen into disrepair, with peeling tiles and overgrown weeds, indicating a failure to maintain this piece of public art. Its imprisonment further diminishes its cultural value and accessibility.

2.0 Socio-Economic Impacts and Setbacks for Inclusive Growth

The decision to enclose World Park is symptomatic of a wider “defensive approach” by businesses in the Market East area. This trend has profound negative consequences for local economic health and social equity, impacting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

2.1 Hindering Economic Revitalization (SDG 8)

The defensive posture of the Marriott and other retailers, such as shuttering street-level entrances, contributes to urban blight and discourages economic activity.

1. It creates deserted sidewalks and dead zones, perpetuating the perception that the area is unsafe.
2. It undermines the objectives of previous large-scale investments, such as the $500 million renovation of the Fashion District, which aimed to create a vibrant, street-oriented commercial corridor.
3. This approach is counterproductive to efforts to reinvent Market East and attract new investment, thereby hindering progress toward sustainable economic growth.

2.2 Exacerbating Social Exclusion (SDG 10)

While the stated reason for the closure is the presence of individuals experiencing homelessness or addiction, the solution exacerbates social inequality rather than addressing its root causes.

• Fencing off public areas disproportionately affects marginalized populations, removing one of the few available places for rest without providing alternative support.
• This method contrasts sharply with inclusive strategies that integrate all individuals into the urban fabric, as seen in successful public spaces like the nearby Jefferson Plaza.
• Effective urban management requires addressing social challenges through support systems, not physical barriers, to achieve the goal of reducing inequalities.

3.0 A Failure of Institutional Strategy and a Call for Proven Solutions

The current situation highlights a failure in urban management and institutional response, areas central to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Alternative, proven strategies exist that align with sustainable development principles.

3.1 Ineffective “Defensive” Urbanism

The strategy of enclosing public space is widely recognized by urban planning experts as an ineffective and counterproductive approach to managing social issues. It fails to resolve the underlying problems and damages the community’s social and economic health.

3.2 Best Practices in Public Space Management

Successful case studies demonstrate the efficacy of inclusive and proactive management.

• Social Outreach: The University City District has effectively reduced homelessness in its public plazas through sustained outreach by trained social workers, a model that could be applied at World Park.
• Creative Placemaking: San Francisco has reclaimed public plazas from drug use by introducing positive activities like skate parks, chess, and Ping-Pong, demonstrating that activating a space is more effective than closing it.

4.0 Recommendations for a Sustainable and Inclusive Future for Market East

To align the redevelopment of Market East with the Sustainable Development Goals, a paradigm shift is required from defensive exclusion to proactive inclusion. This requires robust partnerships between public, private, and community stakeholders, as envisioned in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

4.1 Immediate Actions and Policy Recommendations

1. Free World Park: The city must engage with the Marriott to immediately remove the fence, restore the sculpture, and reopen the space to the public, reaffirming its commitment to SDG 11.7.
2. Implement Inclusive Management: In partnership with the Center City District or other entities, establish a management plan for the space that includes regular maintenance, positive programming, and dedicated social worker outreach to address behavioral challenges constructively.
3. Accelerate the Market Street Task Force: The Mayor’s office must urgently convene the promised task force for Market Street’s revival, ensuring it includes diverse community representation, particularly from adjacent neighborhoods like Chinatown, to foster a truly integrated and participatory planning process (SDG 11.3).

By adopting these recommendations, Philadelphia can reverse a counterproductive action and use the revitalization of Market East as a model for building a truly sustainable, equitable, and resilient urban future.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article repeatedly mentions the presence of homeless individuals and the social challenges associated with poverty in urban public spaces.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The issue of open drug use and addiction is cited as a primary reason for the defensive measures taken by businesses, connecting to public health challenges.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article discusses the struggles of the Market East retail corridor, the importance of the tourist economy, and the economic impact of urban decay on local businesses.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This is the most central SDG, as the article focuses on the accessibility and quality of public spaces, urban planning, cultural heritage (public art), and creating safe, inclusive urban environments.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article touches upon the roles of public-private partnerships, such as the ‘Percent for Art Program’ involving the Marriott, and the need for collaborative efforts like a city task force to address urban revival.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces. The article’s main subject is the denial of access to the “World Park” sculpture garden, which was once a “welcoming station” and “urban refuge” for everyone from tourists to homeless people. The installation of a tall metal fence directly contravenes the goal of universal access. The article contrasts this with inclusive spaces like Jefferson Plaza.
  • Target 11.4: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. “World Park” is described as a “work of sculpture” and a piece of public art contributed to Philadelphia’s ‘Percent for Art Program’. The article notes its state of disrepair (“tiles peeling off the mosaic globe and weeds sprouting”) and its being “jailed” behind a fence, which represents a failure to protect and safeguard this piece of cultural heritage.
  • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management. The article discusses the need to “reinvent Market East” and criticizes the lack of progress on a promised mayoral task force. It also notes that the Chinatown community, a key stakeholder, has not been contacted, highlighting a failure in “participatory” and “integrated” planning.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all. The article suggests that fencing off the park is an ineffective response to homelessness. It advocates for “outreach by trained social workers” as a more effective solution, citing successful programs run by the University City District and Center City District. This points directly to the need for social protection systems to help the vulnerable.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  • Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse. The article identifies the “presence of people using drugs” and the city’s “opioid problem” as the underlying issues leading to the closure of the public space. It implicitly supports addressing this health crisis through social outreach rather than physical barriers.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  • Target 8.9: By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products. The article links the condition of Market East directly to the city’s “tourist economy,” noting the Marriott’s role as a “convention hotel.” The neglect of the area and the public art is described as a “not a good look for next year’s Semiquincentennial bash,” an event expected to attract many visitors, thereby threatening sustainable tourism.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

  • Indicator for Target 11.7 (Access to Public Space): The physical status of the fence around “World Park” (whether it is present or removed). The number of public-facing business entrances that are open versus shuttered on Market Street. The proportion of public space that is accessible and actively used by the public, comparing “World Park” to the “inclusive space” at Jefferson Plaza.
  • Indicator for Target 11.4 (Cultural Heritage): The physical condition of the “World Park” sculpture (e.g., repaired tiles, removal of weeds). The level of public funding or private commitment allocated to the maintenance of public art.
  • Indicator for Target 11.3 (Urban Planning): The formation and active status of the mayoral task force for Market Street. The diversity of representation on the task force, specifically whether stakeholders like the “Chinatown Development Corp.” are included.

• For SDG 1 & 3 (Poverty & Health)

  • Indicator for Target 1.3 & 3.5 (Social Outreach): The implementation and frequency of outreach by trained social workers in the 12th and Filbert area. A reduction in visible homelessness and open drug use as a result of social programs rather than “defensive” architecture.

• For SDG 8 (Economic Growth)

  • Indicator for Target 8.9 (Sustainable Tourism): The office vacancy rate in the downtown area (cited as “roughly 20% in Philadelphia”). The number of empty versus occupied retail spaces on Market Street. The level of preparedness and aesthetic appeal of the area ahead of major tourist events like the “Semiquincentennial bash.”

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: inquirer.com