The New York Times article, on Amanda Burden, tends to be fair and unbiased. The author Julie Satow, does a good job of describing Amanda Burden views, goals and previous projects within New York. It is obvious that she did her background research and whatever she throws out about Amanda she backs it up with a quote or information.
Not only does Satow discuss the success of Burden but she also mentions which areas she could work on. “The High line didn’t create any new affordable housing, only condominiums for the rich, and the park itself has no open spaces for kids, but is more something for tourists to walk through”. (Miguel Acevedo). Which she then challenges with a response from Burden stating that gentrification is necessary for growth.
However, I’m not sure if she means growth to bring new people in yet allowing the neighborhood to contain their current residents or is it growth to force current residents out? I do like the idea of Burden building more housing units closer to transportation which is over all a huge benefit for the community but that will also increase housing prices.
The image that is left with Burden is that she is determined to get her ideas out and is clearly about business, “… The identity of these neighborhoods will remain intact”. (Burden). With her idea of remodeling, and remaking neighborhoods will benefit her as a planning commissioner if her plans follow through accordingly.
