Im really not sure what this article is trying to articulate. What are the bad aspects of Jacksonville's Pocket park versus Detroits?
It appears in your selective photos that you are trying to show that Jacksonville's homeless gather in the pocket park, where as by some stroke of genius detroits park is so clean and well planned that no homeless ever relax in the detroit park..
Weak article, and weak argument.
Perhaps, you've read too much into the photographs. It is a weak article and argument if that's the case. Believe it or not, this is an article that's not ready to run. I never added any text and I'm out of town right now. So its really a miscommunication behind the scenes.
Anyway, since its up, the parks in the images have both been constructed in the last five years and both are roughly around the same size. The point I was going to make was to attempt to drive home the fact that urban parks need to do a few things to be successful spaces:
A. They must respect and complement the surrounding land uses.
B. They must incorporate a mix of features that attract a diverse amount of users on a continuous basis.
If these two things can be carried out, then the space designed (regardless of the amount of money put into it) will be used by a large number of urban residents, workers and visitors. Also, while I still don't agree with the decision to spend $700k on the Main Street park, its still salvagable, if the points above can be introduced at that location.