The lede of this article introduces Amanda M. Burden immediately by a description of her sophisticated physical appearance in contrast to her “drab” physical surroundings. The lede reflects the format of the article. The article goes back and forth between Burden’s supporters and opposers.

Within this profile there’s a conflict story. The story addresses Burden’s important role in rezoning the majority of Manhattan in a short period of time, which was coming to an end. It covers Burden getting personal with the local communities and the “small projects” within them. It also covers Burden’s initiatives on skyscrapers and creating a gentrified New York through rezoning and building restrictions.

The writer’s interviewees are leaders of organizations and local communities. They are accredited sources because of their positions and connections to the actions of Amanda Burden.

The president of the Municipal Art Society of New York praised Burden for her efforts. The art society president called Burden’s work a “renaissance,” reflecting on the beautification of the city created. Following that quote, the writer adds a statement of criticism from the executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. The director’s concern was about the dramatic change in cost to live due to the city’s rezoning. These two sources weigh in on the conflict from different perspectives.

After establishing the issue and how some may feel, the writer goes on to describe Burden’s background and upbringing. Burden seemed to have always been a “somebody.” Even that background contrasted to her story of leaving that life to become an urban planner.

As the article continues to go into the experiences others have had with her, it follows the back and forth format. Community board chairmen applauded Burden for exploring their communities at a street level and trying to help the smaller projects. Some oppose Burden’s new development plans for neighborhoods. One of the writer’s sources, Julia Vitullo-Martin, felt that the new developments neglected the “greatness” of New York and its skyscrapers by adding height restrictions on buildings. The writer, again, is juxtaposing different viewpoints.

The writer also adds Burden’s comments throughout the article that defends Burden’s actions. An example of this is when she comments about how the High Line generated jobs and value for developers. The writer also gives Burden the last quotes of the story. The very last being about New York’s neighborhoods:

“I’m hopeful that what we have done is ensure in the next 15, 20 years, as the city grows, the identity of these neighborhoods will remain intact.”

This quote tries to appeal to those in favor of Burden’s efforts and those who want zones and building restrictions to stay the same.