I think I get what you mean. I think your samples are simply too long. When you use a style like that you are going for impact. It needs to be sharp. You are making a statement. Singular.
This is in contrast to normal where a paragraph is about a single topic and makes several related statements about it. With this style each statement should go into separate paragraph as if it was a separate topic.
Because structurally it is. You are being verbose to make a particular statement more vivid.
In example one sentences one and two set up sentence three. The fourth sentence then follows and talks about same people and same general topic but it is not really part of the same structure with the previous three sentences and comes off disjointed because the third sentence already had the impact the first two sentences set up.
BTW, I agree with others you are probably too harsh on yourself but this is my guess of what was bothering you. You set up an impact with good flow and then there is that extra sentence that doesn't get the impact and it feels bit off from the flow you wanted.
In example two, you are making two points without a pause in between to break them. You first talk of how the people are then about stuff that is around and it is unclear which you want to stress and make vivid which makes using this style pointless for your goals.
From your complaint I'd assume you want your text to have flow and rhythm that raises it above "fan fiction". A constant drumbeat of repeated impacts that blur together does not have that. You need to properly separate the beats. Being "vivid" means being needlessly specific and descriptive about something, so you need to be very specific about what are specific about. Specific is specific.
I think I am being bit hard to understand so I'll try to give a model to clarify.
You have a paragraph about topic T. You say three things about it A, B and C. Let us mark the result (A B C)=T.
Now you want to be more vivid about it so you expand on what you say for effect and do extra set up. Like this ((a b c)->A (d e f)->B (g h i)->C)=T. Now the structure is too complex because you effectively added on extra level to the logical hierarchy. In your examples it still kind of worked because you kept the paragraph short enough instead of making up a pathological example for clarity like I did. But you still have an extra level of structure that impacts the flow negatively. The solution is to unfold the hierarchy to separate paragraphs. ((a b c)->A)=T ((d e f))->B)=T ((g h i))->C)=T, where since they are no longer same paragraph the T and its structure has no impact, is not needed, and you just get (a b c)=A (d e f)=B (g h i)=C, three sensible paragraphs with clear and specific topics of vivid description and without excess structure.
The explanation probably made it less clear. But anyway, this is just my guess of what might be bothering you with those examples. Since it probably has to do with the flow and rhythm of your writing you really need a longer sample for anyone more qualified than me to know for sure.