The Amanda Burden profile is a well written depiction of a city planner working in the middle of two New York City worlds that fail to understand each other.
One side for innovation and making the city a “better place.” The opposing side looking to keep Ms.Burden’s side from doing that.
The author of this article Julia Satow did a fine job of keeping her personal viewpoint of this ordeal out of the piece. That’s how a profile should be written; unbiased. She gives both arguments, and allows the reader to make sense of it all, for themselves.
A problem with the article is the lack of substantial representation for the opposing side. While the article is full of quotes that make Ms.Burden seem like a woman who has New York City’s best interest at hand (at least from an economic standpoint), all of the arguments against her work seem emotion filled and to not be saying anything of substance nor logic.
For instance:
“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,” said Miguel Acevedo, president of the tenants’ association at the Robert Fulton Houses, an affordable-housing development in the neighborhood.”
Mr.Acevedo conveniently ignored the statement made by Ms.Burden about The High Line creating 12,000 jobs and accounting for 2 billion dollars in revenue. The problem isn’t that he skipped those stats, the problem is that he’s complaining about a promise that was never made—not being fulfilled. He’s complaining about condominiums being built for “the rich,” all while holding the title of “President” for the tenants’ association of an affordable-housing development in the same neighborhood as The High Line. His claim of there being no space for kids can be debunked when there are plenty of kids who don’t seem like the park isn’t up to their standard.
Most of the arguments against Ms.Burden’s work are attempts to vilify the rich, which is fine if you have a substantial argument, but none of the arguments included in the article did. I feel Julia Satow should have dug deeper for a more even keeled, opposing argument. Without a stronger opposition than what was quoted, this article ended with Amanda Burden seeming as if she’s NYC’s developmental savior.
That’s a really keen observation. I don’t know much about the High Line, other than the obvious. I’ve never even visited the park. From someone with my perspective it’s easy to look over something like that.
I think Satow allows for her opinion to creep into the feature a bit, perhaps I don’t feel as strongly as you do. She does use some critical quotes about Burden being difficult to work with, but as you pointed out, her zoning tactics rarely experience scrutiny.