They were too small to function as patios, and if they were meant to be 'parklets' well - no room on them for substantial greenery, either.
The first major problem with them, IMO, was that they were installed late in the summer. Very late. So by the time the darn things were in, no one was particularly desirous of using them. Bare as they were. If they had been installed earlier, with more generous planting, they might have looked more inviting, and people might have had time to get used to them as spring turned to summer.
The second problem I had with them were the walls between them. Those walls shouldn't have been there.
As a north-south boardwalk/patio, with the west side wall protecting pedestrians from traffic, the parklets would have worked far better. The walls between them made them so cramped, hardly anything could be done. There was no flow, no ease. As an extension outwards of Church Street's infamously narrow sidewalks, they would have been truly useful. They could still be painted different colours to show which business it section lined up with.
I love the idea of expanded sidewalks on church - with mature trees, street furniture, postering kiosks, gorgeous lighting, the works. The parklets were badly handled, but they represent at least a step towards the idea that Chruch Street is more powerful as a pedestrain destination than an automobile drivethrough.