Jason McDowell makes his argument very clearly throughout the article. He uses tactics of ethos, humor, as well as presenting both sides of the problem. It's clear from the beginning of the article to see where he stands on the issue. He understands that historical buildings will be razed inevitably, but making it clear that “some (are) more honorable than others, such as forces of nature, or simply being in the way of a new, exciting project, or — most unfortunately — poor stewardship and decay.”
He also tries to use emotions to his advantage when describing his argument. He describes the issue in a larger picture, saying how “surface lots from the black holes of a city’s soul”. He is attacking the city as a living, breathing figure and how we are essentially “killing it”. He also uses humor to create an easier tone for this message. Example he uses is that “Nobody looks at a parking lot and says, "That is beautiful," nor do travelers book their vacation plans based on the aesthetics and convenience of parking lots.” A fair, funny, and true point.
Lastly he also brought up counter points from the city of Milwaukee, responsible for the planning of these surface lots. The interviews said they “believe density also enhances privacy. "Visual control is a policing thing. When you have all these open spaces, the city becomes a panopticon, where you can see everything all at once."
Jason McDowell has a lot to say and it's clear where he stands on this issue. He ends the article with a great message countering the argument by the city of Milwaukee. "You don't want to live in a world where you can see everything… Life is better with surprises."
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.