Housing and Work in Corryville

Transcription

Volume 1, Issue 1
October 2008
Editor-In Chief
Elizabeth Wehri
University of Cincinnati
Associate Editors
Erin Gill
Nicholas Hawes
Editorial Body
Emily Balf
Jessica Juarez
Faculty Advisors
Dr. Jeremy Koster
&
Dr. Vernon Scarborough
ii
The University of Cincinnati
Student Journal of Anthropology
Volume 1
Issue 1
October 2008
Contents
Front Matter_______________________________________________________________
Letter from the Staff……………………………………………………………………………iv
Articles_____________________________________________________________________
Introduction to a community interdisciplinary collaboration ……………………………………1
Martha Rees
History of Corryville......................................................................................................................25
Sarah Barth
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Corryville ………………………………………………..29
Maria Venegas
Altered States of Social Reality………………………………………………………………….37
Melony Stambaugh
The Methodology of the Corryville Survey...................................................................................49
Elizabeth Wehri
Housing and Work in Corryville ................................................................................................... 53
Amanda Huber
Constructive Chaos: Does Corryville Work? …………………..……………………………….58
Justin Bonar-Bridges
On the Cover: McMicken Commons was the first open space implemented under the
Campus Master Plan and is located behind McMicken Hall, completed: summer 1990.
Photo courtesy of the University of Cincinnati.
http://www.uc.edu/ucomm/photo/free_images.html
iii
Letter from the Staff
Dear Readers,
We are pleased to present to you the first issue of the University of Cincinnati
Student Journal of Anthropology. Developing this journal has truly been an educational
experience for the entire staff and we hope it will continue to produce new learning
opportunities for all of us.
Our main focus in the development of this Journal was to create a venue through
which the Anthropology students of the University of Cincinnati could display their
research and interests pertaining to the discipline of Anthropology, while also learning
the proper steps in submitting their future works to other academic journals. We
believe this initial issue is a testament to the success of this mission.
The theme of this issue is Applied Anthropology in Cincinnati. The contents of
the issue at hand were part of a project undertaken by the graduate students in Dr.
Martha Rees’s Country and City Seminar Course, in which they surveyed the Uptown
neighborhood of Corryville. The final product of that survey was put together in a book
form and was used by both the Anthropology and DAAP students involved in the course.
We would like to thank Dr. Martha Rees for her input in the project and input in the
contents of this journal.
Finally, we would like to thank the Faculty, Staff and Students of the
Anthropology Department for their continued support on our journal endeavor. We
would like to specifically thank Dr. Jeremy Koster and Dr. Vernon Scarborough for their
commitment to being the faculty advisors for this project. The staff looks forward to
continuing to work with both of these intelligent and supportive Faculty members.
Sincerely,
The UCSJA Staff
iv
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Introduction to a community interdisciplinary collaboration
Martha Rees- University of Cincinnati
In 2006, I was invited by Michaele Pride, director of Architecture and Interior Design in
the school of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning at the University of Cincinnati, to sit in on
critiques in the Niehoff Studio,1 run by Frank Russell, Director of the Community Design Center
and the Studio, and Assistant Professor in the School of Planning. Michaele and I were neighbors
in the Emery Center in downtown Cincinnati, where the Niehoff Studio was then housed.
From the first visit, I was amazed by the different ways of knowing presented by the
architects and planners in the Studio and impressed by their community interaction, especially in
meetings with stakeholders in Mt. Auburn, that year’s project. I brought Melony Stambaugh
along for one of the critiques, and she commented that an anthropologist would be on the streets
observing behaviors before planning any changes. Thus began the concept of how
anthropologists, architects and planners could interact in a local project.
In January 2007, Frank Russell invited me to participate in the Studio, now settled in
Uptown at 2728 Vine Street in Cincinnati. Anthropology and Planning piloted a meta-course
called the Calhoun Corridor. The form this course took was that faculty from anthropology
(Rees), planning (Russell) and architecture (Pride), as well as students in each other their classes,
critiqued each other’s presentations. Planning students were the interviewees for the pilot of a
life history questionnaire; anthropology students attended and critiqued the initial planning
presentations, and planning students attended and critiqued the presentation of the results of
interview with stakeholders in the Clifton-University Heights-Fairview neighborhood (CUF). We
find that community and neighborhood associations are active in planning and voicing their
needs and opinions about the future of this neighborhood, which includes the joint neighborhood
associations--CUF (Clifton/University/Fairview), the Corryville Community Council and the
Avondale Community Council. These, and other neighborhoods, are referred to as Uptown (see
Figure 1).
Students from planning and architecture in the Niehoff studio described and proposed
plans for the neighborhood. Instead of just lecturing to students on economic anthropology, I
combined theoretical lectures with a research project that exemplified in practice the theoretical
basis of the course (the effect of global economies on people’s lives). Anthropology students
designed and carried out life history interviews with residents of these neighborhoods, mainly
community stakeholders and leaders. This combined the pedagogical exercise in life history
interviews, as well as gathering information requested by planning students to carry out their
work. They note people’s desire for community, as well as their antipathy to UC and to chain
stores. People want to shop in the area where they live. One of the problems voiced by residents
in one survey is the high turnover in residents, although they appreciate the diversity the
neighborhood affords (Clifton Heights Survey). Residents appreciate the diversity, but dislike the
construction, the turn-over and the ‘wall’—barrier between Uptown and Downtown. They like
urban living, but desire a community.
1
http://www.uc.edu/cdc/niehoff_studio/niehoff_studio.html
1
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Figure 1. Map of Uptown
As a result of our desire to continue working together, I applied for and was awarded a
Taft-Niehoff Community Scholar Fellowship for the 2007-2008 academic year.2 This fellowship
made it possible for Michaele Pride, Frank Russell and me to coordinate an urban anthropology
course with the Niehoff Studio. One result is the preliminary list of readings and syllabus,
compiled with the help of both Russell and Pride.
The specific methodologies that I, like other anthropologists, bring to the Niehoff Studio
centers around ethnographic methods: anthropologists talk to people. My methods combine
qualitative research (life history interviews, genealogies, and observation) with quantitative data,
including a random survey (see for example, Rees 2006a). While quantitative data gives general,
often skeletal data, about a population, it is the only way to make generalizations. Qualitative
data, while not generalizable, gives voice to the people who live in the communities we study,
2
http://www.artsci.uc.edu/taft/awards/Niehoff.html.
2
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
telling us what their practices and lives mean to them. In my view, neither method alone is
sufficient; only in combination can we approximate a representation of people and communities.
The benefits, to me, of participating in the Niehoff Studio include, first, seeing things
from a different perspective. I learned to appreciate visual forms of representation and learning
as well as the critique method of team work. Second, the quality and visual presentation of the
Niehoff Studio projects I have seen over the past two quarters is impressive: I can only gain by
learning more about their process.
The outcomes for anthropology students include wanting to learn some of the techniques
of the planners. Planning students have made excellent concrete comments and suggestions
about our interviews and data. The dynamic of all meetings is interactive and creative. Another
result was the inclusion of Margaret Kupferle of Environmental Engineering and her students in
assessing environmental conditions in the neighborhoods. To this end, we worked on Seed Grant
Proposal for Sustainable Urban Engineering that she was granted to help fund this next stage of
our collaboration. Her students sampled and tested tap water for lead.
This project was truly interdisciplinary, in the sense that the product of each discipline
contributed to the products of the others. We combined different perspectives in collaborating
with community organizations to increase our knowledge of, and improve the design of, the
urban community immediately surrounding the University of Cincinnati. Outcomes include not
only the synergies from teaching across units, this report on the findings from Autumn of 2007,
and continuing work in the Avondale neighborhood in Winter and Spring 2008. Community
members and organizations participated in critiquing the report(s) at every stage.
With a population in 2000 of over 2 million people, the city of Cincinnati has seen a
population decrease of 9% between 1990 and 2000—mainly whites. At the same time the
population of Latinos increased 77%.3 Whites have abandoned the central city and moved to
affluent suburbs, while the outlying counties that used to have a strong industrial base have
shifted their production base to small industry, leaving the white working class unemployed.
Salaries in these areas have fallen. In the blue collar and service sectors (principally restaurants
and maintenance), the hourly wage in the region was $16.19 and $11.53, respectively in 2003.4
While salaries have fallen, wealth continues to be concentrated in a few corporations,5
what some call ‘distorted development’ (LaBotz 2008). In addition, corporate coalitions such as
Cincinnati Business Committee (CBC), Downtown Cincinnati Incorporated (DCI), and
Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) are influential in directing policy. Two
families, the Lindners and the Peppers, the first associated with American Financial Group and
the second with Procter and Gamble, play an inordinate role in the financing of local political
campaigns and candidates.
Theoretical musings
Anthropology is a way of knowing the world, because it lets us critically compare
different events or behaviors. What people say is embedded in their ideology, so when they say
something, we must always contextualize the speaker and their speech. So how do we know
whether one person’s statement is generally applicable? How do we make sense of statistics? I
http://www.polidata.us/pub/maps/rg2000/OH_reg.pdf.
National Compensation Survey - Wages, http://www.bls.gov/xg_shells/ro5xg08.htm.
5 1) Procter & Gamble; 2) Kroger, 3) Macy's/Federated Department Stores/; 4) Fifth Third Bancorp, 5)
Western and Southern Financial, 6) American Financial Corp, and, 7) E.W. Scripps.
3
4
3
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
have done a lot of quantitative analysis, but without the qualitative work, that analysis is useless.
Likewise, anecdotal ethnographic information cannot lead to generalizations without populationwide information. It’s the middle road, a combination of sources and kinds of data helps us
(dis)cover our own blinders, at least a little.
Surveys are a lot of work—to do it right you have to test and re-test; train and re-train;
verify in the field and verify captured data. It is the only way to get data to build generalizations.
Ethnographic data is also a lot of work, but is essential for in-depth understanding. These
methods are time-consuming, but they give breadth—community variation, and depth, individual
stories, stories from ordinary people not usually interviewed.
Anthropologists have an ethical obligation, among other things, to do no harm
(http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethics.htm). Many of us have realized how great the
potential for harm can be. Students take training in human subjects protection and change not
only names, but also identifying characteristics. My experiences have left me with a profound
feeling of gratitude for the people who are my teachers—giving me their time and knowledge.
Students also have taught me more than I can say about how to view the world critically. In
addition, as anthropologists working anywhere, it is incumbent upon us to disseminate our
findings and publications among the people we study. Few do.
In summary, my view of methods includes interpolating qualitative and quantitative data,
protecting informants, but also including them in the results of any research. In addition, working
with the Niehoff Studio broadened my concept of interdisciplinary collaboration—using the
goals of others as a basis for study. In the readings for these courses, two articles prompted me to
consider collaboration in the broader sense—collaboration with the community itself. Mendez
(2006) asks us to ask who our research is for? While there is no single answer to this question,
she raises the issues of power and control that anyone who engages in research faces, whether or
not we do so consciously. In this project, the anthropology students placed themselves as the
mediators between the community and the planners. Richards (2006) points out what we have all
discovered, that we learn from the people we collaborate as much as they learn from us. This, of
course, is what the Niehoff Studio is all about.
In reviewing the anthropological and social science literature on urban studies, I
reconsidered the nature of ‘urban’ as a once-conceived place, a socially constructed space
(Lefevre 1974) but now, if the city is a space, it is no longer the space for industrial or social
reproduction, as globalization has removed localities from this process, at the same time that
local identities have increased in importance.
In this tension between the local and the global (Rees and Smart 2001), Harvey’s (1996)
analysis reminds us of the power relations that are often hidden by the discourse about social
justice, and the necessity of locating / situating, researcher, community and stakeholders in this
power struggle. As a white, middle class, heterosexual female, well-paid by the University of
Cincinnati and resident of Cincinnati, m own process of realizing my racist reactions to the
‘danger of downtown’ (see discussion in Wehri, p. 49ff), is merely party on an on-going process.
Likewise, Hayden’s (1996) article works points out the bias inherent in gendered approaches to
planning and urbanism. In conclusion, planning and research give me/us the illusion of
understanding or organizing the future or the present, whereas, in fact, without analysis of our
own location (situation), we cannot critically understanding the world around us. Our location is
not just determined by our social class, but also by our gender, race or ethnicity, and our lives.
In the final analysis, anthropology students were more attuned to individual people and
what they say and want, which is not surprising considering their training. Planning and
4
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
architecture students, on the other hand, were more focused on space as an independent
variable—the determinant of social and other outcomes, as well as their product in class—not a
surprise considering their training. It was this divide that was and is the greatest barrier. The
anthropology students loved the visual and spatial representations provided by the architecture
and planning students, but felt marginalized by some of them. It appears that some architecture
and planning students felt that the information provided by the anthropologists came too late (a
product of the quarter system) and were not relevant to their task (and grade). However, some of
them said that the anthropologists had opened their eyes to things they had never considered.
Overall, all of the students could use more critical analysis; for example, in situating themselves,
most did not mention race, even though the University of Cincinnati is a white school in a black
city. These issues are the product of the attempt to work in an interdisciplinary project and must
be continuously addressed in any team.
As for me, I am an anthropologist who has worked in Mexico and with immigrants in the
US for decades. Before I moved to Mexico, my consciousness of inequalities and privileges,
although broadly based in questions of race and class, was mainly focused on gender. I lived the
disadvantages of my gender (female), when some professors said—among other things--that
females were not allowed to do archaeological fieldwork, and others said that they expected
women to drop out. In my first field work in Mexico, and in subsequent years, I realized my
national origin (US) gave me so much privilege that it overcame any disadvantage that came
from being female. In addition, my skin color (white) opened doors that I was never aware of in
the US. Later, at Agnes Scott College, colleagues and students gently continued my education
into the effects of race on gender and class. Thus, I entered this project acutely aware of my
position of privilege in general, as well as my position as a university professor. My experience
living in downtown Cincinnati, and working in Corryville continued my education into my own
unexamined constructs—I was afraid for female students (see below, p. 49ff) because of my
ideas about race and danger. Gladwell’s (2005) book Blink further describes how our
unconscious structures condition our behavior and urges us to become aware of them in order to
combat them. My experience in Corryville, with Niehoff Studio colleagues and students, with
community stakeholders and residents and with anthropology students, advanced my awareness
of myself.
This experience continued in the winter of 2008, when Marshall Brown from
Architecture co-led the Niehoff Studio with Frank Russell, starting with global and focusing in
on the uptown neighborhood of Avondale. This quarter referred to works that I had never read.
Venturi’s (1977) Learning from Las Vegas visually describes a city, its activities and inequalities
in a beautiful and, to me, new, way. Frankfurt’s(2005) On Bullshit put our academic verbosity
into perspective and Koolhaas et al.(2001) book, Mutations, from the Harvard Design School’s
Project on the City, describes the new urban environment studied, from a different perspective by
social scientists like Castells (1972, 1983), Harvey (1996, 1997) and Ferguson and Gupta (2002).
This book includes work by Sassen, who is an example of a scholar who crosses back-and-forth
between the disciplines (1990, 2001).
In the project report that follows, Sarah Barth summarize the history of Corryville, Maria
Venegas presents the basic demographic information, Melony Stambaugh presents her data on
the organization of nonprofits in the area. Then Liz Wehri describes our methodology, and
Amanda Huber and Justin Bridges analyze the results of the survey. Appendices include the first
set of questions and results, as well as the survey this report is based on, along with other
documents.
5
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the support of the Taft Research Center and
the Niehoff Community Scholar Fellowship. Students in Economic Anthropology in the Winter
of 2007, as well as students in Urban Anthropology in the Fall of 2007 worked hard on breaking
the ground necessary to make this project happen. Students and Faculty in the Niehoff Studio,
community residents and stakeholders all worked hard to cross disciplinary boundaries.
6
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
References
Castells, Manuel. 1972. The Urban Question. A Marxist Approach (2nd edition). Cambridge:
MIT Press. Pp. 9-38.
Castells, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
De Freitas, Camila Lizie. 2005. Unveiling the picture of the new neighbors: integration issues for
Latino immigrants in Hamilton, Ohio. MA of Community Planning, International
Development Specialization, DAAP, University of Cincinnati.
Department of City Planning Cincinnati. 2001. http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3250/.
Dreger, Alice. 2006. So You're a Scholar Who Wants to Make Things Happen.
http://www.bioethicsforum.org/dreger-activism-and-academia.asp. Wednesday, September 13,
2006
Estes, Sarah Beth. 2005. What role do women play in the local economy? A Study on the Status
of Women and Girls in Greater Cincinnati. Cincinnati: PULSE.
Ferguson, James and Akhil Gupta. 2002. Spatializing states: toward an ethnography of neoliberal
governmentality. American Ethnologist 29.4: 981-1002.
Frankfurt, Harry G. 2005. On Bullshit. Princeton:NJ. Princeton University Press.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Boston: Little,
Brown & Company.
Harvey, David. 1996. Class Relations, Social Justice and the Political Geography of Difference.
Pp. 334-365. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Pp. 334-365. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Blackwell.
Harvey, David.1997. Contested Cities: Social process and spatial form, pp. 19-27, in N. Jewson
and S. McGregor, eds., Transforming Cities: Contested Governance and New Spatial
Divisions, 1997
Hayden, Dolores. 1996. What would a non-sexist city look like? Pp. 142-157. Richard LeGates
and Frederick Stout, eds. The City Reader. NY: Routledge.
Koolhaas, Rem, Stefano Boeri, Sanford Kwinter, Nadia Tazi, and Hans Ulrich Obrist. 2000.
Mutations: Rem Koolhaas, Harvard Project on the City, Stefano Boeri, Multiplicity, Sanford
Kwinter, Nadia Tazi, Hans Ulrich Obrist. Barcelona: ACTAR.
La Botz, Dan. 2008. Who Rules Cincinnati? http://www.cincinnatistudies.org/studies.html.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1974. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Mendez, Jennifer Bickham. 2006. Research as Social Justice Work: Reflections on Doing
Politically Engaged Scholarship. LASA Forum. XXXVII.4. 10-13.
Millar, Zane L. and Bruce Tucker. 1998. Changing Plans for America’s Inner Cities. Columbus:
Ohio State University.
Rees, Martha W. (in press). Destinos Viejos, Destinos Nuevos de los Migrantes Oaxaqueños.
Mexico: Asociación Mexicana de Estudios Rurales.
Rees, Martha W. 1996. Ethnicity and Community in Oaxaca: Nursery, Hospital, and Retirement
Home. Reviews in Anthropology 25:107-123.
7
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Rees, Martha W. 2006a. Ayuda or work? Analysis of Labor histories of Heads of Household
from Oaxaca. Chapter 4 in: Labor in Anthropology (Society for Economic Anthropology
Monograph, Volume 22), edited by E. Paul Durrenberger and Judith E. Marti.
Rees, Martha W. 2006b. Migration in Times of Globalization. Research in Economic
Anthropology, Volume 25. Pp. 27-50. Donald Woods, Ed. New York: Elsevier.
Rees, Martha W. 2008. Immigration–Mexican Female Migrants. Amy Lind and Stephanie
Brzuzy, eds. Battleground: Women, Gender and Sexuality. Greenwood Press. Pp. 358-364.
Rees, Martha W. and Dolores Coronel Ortiz. 2005. El Trabajo y La Migración Femenina en Los
Valles Centrales De Oaxaca, 1950-2000. In, Los Actores Sociales Frente al Desarrollo Rural.
Paola Sesia-Arcozzi-Masino and Emma Zapata M., coordinadores. Mexico: Asociación
Mexicana de Estudios Rurales. Pp. 639-670.
Rees, Martha W. and Jennifer Nettles. 2000. Los Hogares Internacionales: Migrantes Mexicanos
a Atlanta, Georgia. In Latinas Migrantes. Ofelia Woo and Sarah Poggie, eds. Mexico:
Edamex.
Rees, Martha W. and Josephine Smart, eds. 2001. Plural Globalities in Multiple Localities: New
World Borders. Introductory Thoughts. In, Local Responses To Globalization. Martha W.
Rees and Josephine Smart, editors. Lanham: University Press of America. Pp. 1-18.
Richards, Patricia. 2007. A Feminist Sociologist’s Reflections on Collaborative Research. LASA
Forum. XXXVII.:. 16-18.
Sassen, Saskia 1990 Economic Restructuring and the American City. Annual Review of
Sociology 16:465-490.
Sassen, Saskia 2001 The City: Between Topographic Representation and Spatialized Power
Projects. Art Journal 60(2):12-20.
Venturi, Robert et al. 1977. Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of
Architectural Form. Cambridge: MA. MIT Press.
8
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Notes:
2007 Life History Project Interview Form
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This interview is part of a collaborative research project between anthropology students and
planning students at the University of Cincinnati. This project aims at learning about and
analyzing the lives of women in selected neighborhoods as part of course study and
undergraduate and graduate training, but also in order to understand economic shifts and their
effects on households over time in the Cincinnati, Ohio region.
The data that we collect will also be useful in learning about the changing economic needs of
households and the perspective of female residents within these households.
All information gathered is confidential: we do not need last names, nor are names tied to the
interview data. Your participation in this project is completely voluntary. If you do not wish to
participate, thank you for your time. If you wish to participate, we thank you for your support of
this important research.
By signing, I agree to participate in this study and I have read and understood this statement. I
have received a copy of this statement for my records.
Signature interviewer: ___________________
Date: ______________________________
Contact information:
Project Leader:
Martha Woodson Rees
Associate Professor and Head
Department of Anthropology
481 Braunstein Hall
PO 210380
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0380
513 556 0369
Interviewer:
513 556 2772 (main office)
Email: ______________________
9
LIFE HISTORY PROJECT DATA SHEET
Name: _______________________________________________
Address: _____________________________________________
Phone number: ______________
Email: __________________
Time/Date: _______________
Interviewer: ___________________
INDIVIDUAL
Informant Gender
Informant Birth year
Birth Place ____________________/__________/______
Town/ State/ Country
Marriage year (first)
Years of education
PARENTS
Mother’s education (years)
Father’s occupation
CODE
M/F
Decade _________
US/ other
Rural/Urban
Decade _________
years
Ag Waged
Manager
Professional
Small business
Other
____________
Ag; Waged;
Manager;
Professional; Small
business; Other
_____
Mother’s occupation
MARRIAGE
Current Marital status
S/M/D/W
Other________
Ag; Waged;
Manager;
Professional; Small
business; Other
_____
Spouse/partner’s occupation (if applicable)
CHILDREN
Number of children
Age of oldest child
SIBLINGS
Number of siblings
WORK HISTORY
Age at first job
First job
Ag; Waged;
Manager;
Professional; Small
10
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
business; Other
_____
Ag; Waged;
Manager;
Professional; Small
business; Other
_____
Ag; Waged;
Manager;
Professional; Small
business; Other
_____
Current/last job
Main or most important job
MIGRATION
Year first migration (if different from CNTI)
Migrated from
______________________/___________/_____
First migration destination
______________________/___________/_____
Year moved to current city (not house)
Decade _________
US/ other
Rural/Urban
US/ other
Rural/Urban
Decade _________
CURRENT HOUSEHOLD
Total Females in Household
Total Males in Household
Highest Education in household (years)
Total number of workers not retired, half time =.5
Female workers
OBSERVATION
House type single, multiple, ____
Rooms 1, 2, 3,…
Cars 1, 2,…; TVs 1, 2, …; Computers-internet 0, 1, 2; Bedrooms/baths 1, 2/ 1, 2,
11
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
LIFE QUESTIONS
CHILDHOOD (open)
Tell me about your early life.
Where were you born and lived?
Who did you live with? (who lived in the household?)
Who supported the household? How? (name all)
Who took (will take) care of your parents in their old age?
ADULT & FAMILY LIFE (open)
Tell us about your work life? How did you start?
Did/does your work(ing) life change after marriage? After children?
What do you live on? Who supports the household? (name all)
How do you contribute to your household?
Financially (Money, percent)
Work, Other
Tell us about your marriage (s): how did you meet, what was the ceremony like? Where did you
get married?
How is your life different from your parents’? (open)
How is your children’s life different from yours? (open)
DAILY LIFE -Name the three most important groups /organizations to you belong to
Group
Where
type
last participated
Transport
How much time/hours do you spend outside your home every day? Yesterday? Was this a typical
day?
What do you do? (when you leave) (work, exercise, errands, social….)
How do you prefer to get to the places you go to daily? (walk, drive,bike, bus)
Where do you buy your groceries? (the last time) (neighborhood, city)
How do you get there? Walk, taxi, ride, bus, car, other
Go to the doctor? (neighborhood, city,..)
How do you get there? Walk, taxi, ride, bus, car, other
Where do you buy your medicines? (neighborhood, city,..)
How do you get there? Walk, taxi, ride, bus, car
Other neighborhood errands? (laundry, etc.) (neighborhood, city,..)
How do you get there? Walk, taxi, ride, bus, car
What is the worst thing about this neighborhood? (challenges, problems).
What would you change?
What is the best thing about this neighborhood?
What services would you like to see in your ideal neighborhood? (groceries, medical, sports,
entertainment, social, learning, other)
When do you/did you retire? (age, year)
What are your long term plans and needs?
Where do you want to retire? (city, state, neighborhood).
Type of housing: single, multiple, community…
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS?
TIME: _____________________
12
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Life History Interview summary, 2007
Groups belong to:
No church
Unitarian Church -2
Neighborhood advocacy groups—9
Sport—3
Music (choir) -1
Social/support - 4
How much time/hours do you spend outside your home every day?
Range from 2-14
Seasonal
What do you do?
Work
Shop
Errands
Meetings
Care for mother
Exercise
Practice/rehearsal
How do you prefer to get to the places you go to daily?
Walk
Mass transit (not available)
Drive
Seasonal
Where do you buy your groceries?
Kroger (Hyde Park 2, Corryville 3, Springrove 1)
Findlay Market
Fresh Market—Oakley
IGA
Natural Foods (Clifton)
Ravine Street Market
KY Partysource (liquor)
How do you get there?
Drive
Walk (Market and small trips)
Go to the doctor?
Christ Hospital
Local
Hyde Park
Calls dad
Drive
Where do you buy your medicines?
CVS
Walgreens
Mail Order 2
13
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Walk
Drive
Other neighborhood errands?
Local merchants
What is the worst thing about this neighborhood?
College kids
Renters
Absentee landlords
Calhoun construction
Litter -2
Vandalism
New development—condo complexes wall
Change?
Transportation
Contact info for college kids
Independent business instead of chains—no fast food
Communication with neighbors—better
More community feeling
Parking
Kick out slumlords!!!
Best?
Diversity
Location—walking, proximity
Access to interstate
Proximity to UC
Working class, educated, elite
Services wanted?
Local grocers/market
Dry cleaner
Independent pharmacy
More local retail
Ethnic restaurant/retail
Improved public transportation
Homeowner—less rental
No litter
Separate residential and retail (Mt. Adams)
Retire?
Age 35
5-7 years (65)
Age 55, 70
No plans
Long term plans and needs?
No plans
Time for hobbies—gardening, boating
14
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Community involvement (UC events, CCM)
Where do you want to retire?
Near ocean
Chicago
Maryland
Multiple homes
Local
Australia or Florida
Type of housing (now)
Single family
Retirement housing?
House or condo in social community with support
New house or condo
Independent living
# interviewed—8
Ages range from 37—65
Most in 50’s.
Education—BS—3
PhD 2
Masters 3
Jobs
Self employeed (small business) 3
Salaried professional 6
Marital status:
Self supporting 3
Dual income 5
Quote
“I hate the walling off”
“Frustrated with the lack of development on Calhoun”
“I don’t know how much longer we can continue looking like Bagdad!”
15
Urban Anthropology Syllabus (Fall 2007)
15-ANTH 346. COUNTRY AND CITY
Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati,
Autumn 2007, MW 3:30-4:45
PROFESSOR: Martha Woodson Rees (martha.rees@uc.edu)
OFFICE HOURS:
TTh 3:30-5, or by appointment, Braunstein 466
This course continues anthropological collaboration with DAAP. It is part of a META COURSE,
called CALHOUN CORRIDOR, which you must enroll in to get access to their documents and
work. Autumn 2007 combines Anth 346/746 Country and City with the Niehoff Studio's
planning and architecture students. Our project is a survey of the Correyville neighborhood.
Goals include understanding urban theories and learning survey methods and analysis in the
context of class, race and gender in the context of a local Cincinnati neighborhood. The format is
Lectures: Mondays; field work and collaboration (at the Niehoff Studio on Short Vine):
Wednesdays. FIRST CLASS: 3420 Aronoff, DAAP).
REQUIRED READINGS (preliminary)
Human Subjects Protection training course
(http://webcentral.uc.edu/cpd_online2/login2.cfm?CFID=1880610&CFTOKEN=75737969&jses
sionid=7c301ea3f4c2245f6949
Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association
(http://aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm)
Rees Policies 2007 (in Course Documents)
READINGS
SELECTIONS FROM/ARTICLES (ONLY THOSE POSTED ON BB)
MIT Press. Pp. 9-38.
Castells, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dreger, Alice. 2006. So You're a Scholar Who Wants to Make Things Happen.
http://www.bioethicsforum.org/dreger-activism-and-academia.asp. Wednesday, September 13,
2006
Ferguson, James and Akhil Gupta. 2002. Spatializing states: toward an ethnography of neoliberal
governmentality. American **
Pp. 334-365. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Blackwell.
Harvey, David.1997. Contested Cities: Social process and spatial form, pp. 19-27, in N. Jewson
and S. McGregor, eds., Transforming Cities: Contested Governance and New Spatial
Divisions, 1997
Jacobs, Ronald N. 2000. Race, media, and the crisis of civil society : from Watts to Rodney King
. Cambridge
16
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Mendez, Jennifer Bickham. 2007. Research as Social Justice Work: Reflections on Doing
Politically Engaged Scholarship
Richards, Patricia. 2007. A Feminist Sociologist’s Reflections on Collaborative Research
Sassen, Saskia 1990 Economic Restructuring and the American City. Annual Review of
Sociology 16:465-490.
Sassen, Saskia 2001 The City: Between Topographic Representation and Spatialized Power
Projects. Art Journal 60(2):12-20.
Smith, Carol A. 1976. Regional Economic Systems: Linking Geographical Models and
Socioeconomic Problems. In Regional Analysis, Volume 1, Economic Systems. Carol A.
Smith, ed. Pp. 3-68. New York: Academic Press.
Recommended
Gore, Al. Inconvenient truth
Lewis, Oscar 1968 La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty—San Juan and
New York. New York: Vintage Books.
Writing
Turabian, Kate L. 1973 A Manual for Writers of Term papers, Theses and Dissertations.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. How does the structure of work affect the urban underclass? What barriers do the urban
underclass face in finding work or in holding a job? What role does public policy play?
2. How do race, geography, and language effect an individual's ability to get a job?
3. What factors contributed to the Los Angeles riots of 1992, and the Watts riots of 1964?
What is the effect of these riots? What do the riots mean and what effects do they have?
4. What role does police violence play?
5. Who are the homeless and what does their presence imply for the rest of us? Is the
homeless population really growing, or is it an illusion? What kinds of public policies are
responsible for homelessness? What kinds of public policies might alleviate the problem?
6. Have American Incomes become more unequal?
7. What kinds of public policies are most responsible for rising inequality?
8. If the rich are getting richer, is that necessarily bad for the urban underclass? That is, is
inequality necessarily a bad thing?
9. Urbanism as a way of life -- the consequences of living in cities for human behavior
10. How are Islamic cities different from cities in the United States? Colonial Cities
FREE ADVICE
Join Anthropos on BB > Community to keep up with jobs, talk, internships and more—field
trips.
Keywords and concepts:
public and private space
collective consumption
land rent
collaborative research
17
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
participant observation
post industrial city
Carbon calculator
COURSE OBJECTIVES
This course continues anthropological collaboration with DAAP. Autumn 2007 combines Anth
346/746 Country and City with the Niehoff Studio's planning and architecture students
[http://www.uc.edu/news/niehstud.htm]. Our project is a survey of the Corryville neighborhood
next to UC. Goals include understanding urban theories and learning survey methods and
analysis in the context of class, race and gender in the context of a local Cincinnati
neighborhood. Meetings with stakeholders and public presentation of findings make this a
preliminary example of collaborative research, with all of the ethical issues this involves. The
format is Lectures: Mondays; Field Work and Collaboration (at the Niehoff Studio on Short
Vine): Wednesdays. FIRST CLASS: TBA (in DAAP). On indicated days, teams present their
work in conjunction with Niehoff Studio projects. This course is a Women’s Studies course.
STUDENT OUTCOMES
1. Develop knowledge of fundamental principles and concepts of urban studies through study of
a local Cincinnati neighborhood
2. Develop knowledge of anthropological research methods and ethics, including interviewing,
surveys and data analysis
3. Develop interdisciplinary team work skills.
4. Be able to analyze these phenomena in terms of race/ethnicity, gender and class.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS--BLACKBOARD
Readings Commentaries
40
Survey and data analysis
30
Final paper (Intro and Conclusions) 20
Participation & Presentations 10
Students are responsible for all materials presented in class, and the appropriate text materials, as
well as any additional readings or audio visual materials.
PARTICIPATION & PRESENTATIONS (20 points). I don't take attendance, but there are
several good reasons for you to attend class regularly. First, you will learn something, which
after all should be your reason for attending college in the first place. Second, if you are in class
and participate in the discussion you will receive credit which will help your grade. Third,
experience suggests that those who miss class do poorly, and that students who actively
participate in class tend to enjoy them more than students who don't.
READINGS & Reaction (40 points)
Reaction/response to each reading—ONE PAGE minimum per author, DUE in writing ON THE
DATE THE READING IS ASSIGNED. See course documents for ideas about how to write a
reaction paper. TWENTY READINGS.
SURVEY (30 points)
18
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Random sample of households
Test survey questionnaire
Apply survey questionnaire
Analysis survey responses
Report
FINAL PAPER (Intro and Conclusions, revisions of previous) (20 points)
Your research project involves an extended life (reproductive and labor) history of an immigrant
woman, as well as information provided by her about other members of her kin group. The final
product will be a dossier on this family. First you must select an informant in consultation with
me. The chapters include (1) introduction and background, (2) a woman’s life history, kinship,
and genealogical questionnaires, (3) analysis of the household in terms of world system, (4)
conclusions. In addition, your bibliography, photos, maps and other materials. The parts (graded
separately and re-graded as revised in the final version) include:
A. INTRODUCTION (5) points. The Introduction explains what you did, the theme you derive
from this, etc. Your introduction tells us who you are, how you met your informant and why you
picked her. Introduce your theme. Include your human subjects’ training and how this complies
with the AAA Code of Ethics. Describe the setting.
B. Method (5)
C. Data
DATA ENTRY & CHARTS (30 points).
Enter the data into Excel spreadsheets, translate this into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences) and make charts that summarize the data. Summarize each chart and finding.
D. Conclusions and POSTER PRESENTATION (10 points)
Revision of all chapters up to this point. Form counts, including bibliography and supplementary
documentation such as photos, maps, etc. Include a title page and title that hints at your theme.
Make a table of contents indicating each chapter and page. See Poster Instructions (in Course
Documents).
Revisions include your previous work on the life history interview, kin chart, genealogical
questionnaire data, charts and analysis (for resubmission credit, you must annex your original
work).
Conclusion: Your conclusion pulls it all together, with a summary and discussion of the main
points of the readings and summary of your findings. Include your bibliography and any
appendices.
OTHER EXERCISES/ASSIGNMENTS (preliminary)
Daily Round exercise (19 September, present 26 September): Teams will observe the use of
space, over time of a selected individual: document and describe. Includes maps, photos,
interaction with others. Team report.
Inequality in use of space
Gendered use of space
Expressive use of space
Urban Land rent
19
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
Grading Criteria—
Hint: Read over the instructions in the syllabus or on Blackboard, make sure your work follows
the instructions and contains all the elements assigned.
A=>90%: An “A” is excellent work, contains original thought, excellent accomplishment of all
criteria; as close to a perfect paper as can be
B=80-89%: A “B” is good work; it meets all the criteria, and is well developed.
C=70-79%: “C” work is OK, although it meets all criteria, but these are only weakly developed.
D=60-69%: “D” work is poor, work that does not meet all criteria.
F=<60%: Failing work does not meet the basic criteria.
20
Vol. 1 Is. 1
October 2008
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE, 9/25/07 edition (changes in red)
*Note meetings that go from 3-5
DATE
Lecture/Studio
READINGS
Due
9/19
1. Neighborhoods of UC
3420
Aronoff
24-Sep
9/26
2. Origin of Cities
a. Presentations of observation
b. Methods/Readings Discussion
c.Pre test questionnaire, final
1-Oct
3. Industrial & Post Industrial
Cities
No class: survey
Castells 1979
Reaction paper
4. Post Industrial Cities: Empire
and War
3-5pm
Sassen 1990
Castells 1979 1996
Initial survey
findings
Reaction paper
3-Oct
8-Oct
10-Oct
15-Oct
17-Oct
Méndez, Dreger,
Richards
AAA Ethics
statement
IRB/human subjects
training
Reaction paper
Reaction paper
IRB training
Teams present
5. COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
PANEL
TEAM MEETINGS
22-Oct
24-Oct
6. Class and inequality
Presentation of Intervention
Strategies
Harvey
Reaction paper
29-Oct
31-Oct
7. Gender
DATA ANALYSIS (bring or
post)
Hayden 1996
Reaction paper
**BRAUNSTEIN**
5-Nov
7-Nov
8. Race
Presentations
12-Nov
14-Nov
9. Anthropology
TEAM WORK, final drafts
19-Nov
21-Nov
GROUP WORK
Thanksgiving
26-Nov
29-Nov
3 DEC
5 DEC
Final presentations
Public presentation
Reaction paper
Ferguson & Gupta
Reaction paper
FINAL Paper
21
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
Corryville 2007 Survey
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This interview is part of a collaborative research project between anthropology students and
planning and architecture students at the University of Cincinnati. This project aims at learning
about selected neighborhoods as part of course study and undergraduate and graduate training,
but also in order to understand economic shifts and their effects on households over time in the
Cincinnati, Ohio region.
The data that we collect will also be useful in learning about the changing economic needs of
households and the perspective of residents of these households.
All information gathered is confidential: we do not need last names, nor are names tied to the
interview data. Your participation in this project is completely voluntary. If you do not wish to
participate, thank you for your time. If you wish to participate, we thank you for your support of
this important research.
By signing, I agree to participate in this study and I have read and understood this statement. I
have received a copy of this statement for my records.
Signature interviewee: ______________________________
Date: ______________________________
Contact information:
Project Leader:
Interviewer:
Martha Woodson Rees
Associate Professor and Head
481 Braunstein Hall
PO 210380
513 556 2772 (main office)
Email: ______________________
513 556 0369
22
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
First, we’d like to ask you some questions about your housing:
1.
How many units are in this building?
___
2.
Do you rent or own, or….? ____________________
___
3.
How many bedrooms
___
4.
How much is the rent or Mortgage?
$______
Now we’d like to know something about this household.
5.
Number living in HOUSEHOLD (last night)
___
6.
Total Females in Household
___
7.
Highest Education in household (years)
___
8.
Total number of workers not retired (half time =.5)
___
9.
Female workers
___
10. Where do you work? ___________
neighborhood, city, suburbs___
11. How do you get there?
walk, drive, bike, bus, other ___
12. How long does it take to get there?
(mins)___
13. How do you prefer to get to the places you go to daily?
_________________________________
14. Where is the main place you buy your groceries? (or the last time)
______________________________________
(neighborhood, city) ___
16. Where are your medical services? (the last time)
18. Where do you buy your medicines? (the last time) ____________
____
______________________________
20. Other neighborhood errands? (laundry, etc.)
Now can you tell us something about yourself?
22. How much did you spend on food last week? (excluding restaurants?)
$______
23. Gender
M/F/O
24. Birth year
Decade _________
25. Birth Place _____________________
State (if US)/Country (if not US)_____
26. Years of education
(primary = 6, HS=12; BA=16…) ___
27. Marital Status
married, divorced, widowed, other ___
28. Number of children
___
29. Location of children’s schools (if live here)
(neighborhood)
________
30. Age of oldest child
___
31. Current or last job _______ (professional; student; white collar, service, self, other) ___
Next we have some general questions about the neighborhood:
37. What is the worst thing about this neighborhood?
38. What is the best thing about this neighborhood?
39. What services would you like to see in your ideal neighborhood?
23
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
49. Where do you gather outside of home? (church, school, food service, street/neighborhood;
park/public….)
50. How does the University of Cincinnati affect your neighborhood?
51. What religious, social or sports groups /organizations do you belong to:
Religious
___
Sports
___
Neighborhoods
___
Service
___
Other _______________________________________________
___
Could we talk to you again if we have more questions? If so, what is the best way to contact
you?
Address: ________________________________________________ (time)
Phone : ___________
Email: __________________
If Engineering student is present:
1. As part of a study of the urban environment, we would like to test your water for lead, if you
are willing. We will return with the results. All we have to do is fill this container with the first
cold water to come out of the kitchen tap and return the filled container to the student. Yes/No/_
2. Can you tell us long ago the kitchen tap was last used?
(minutes/hours)______
Time/Date:
Interviewer:
24
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
The History of Corryville
Sarah Barth- University of Cincinnati
ABSTRACT Corryville, located in the geographical center of Cincinnati, Ohio, was one of the
first communities that rose up outside of the then-boundaries of the city of Cincinnati. It was
known for its German heritage and particularly the high quality of workmanship found in its
goods. The University of Cincinnati and its expansion over the years has greatly affected the
community, as well as the build up of great hospital complexes. The twentieth century, however,
had a negative affect, economically on the neighborhood and many of the original owners moved
out, creating rental units and encouraging a lower economic class to enter. The 1960s brought
city-wide renewal plans, which changed the face of Corryville. Riots and a new nightlife soon
followed and created what Corryville is today.
The essential characteristic of Corryville today is a combination of two traits—the high
proportion of very well-built, charming homes that are well worth updating and maintaining at a
superior level, and the fact that a high proportion of these houses have been converted into small
apartment.”
City Planning Commission 1960
A Brief Overview
Corryville, currently located in the geographic center of Cincinnati, Ohio, was one of the
first communities that rose up outside of the boundaries of the city of Cincinnati. It was known
for its German heritage and particularly the high quality of workmanship found in its goods.
People would come from all over the area to find the types of crafts that only Corryville could
provide. The University of Cincinnati and its expansion over the years has greatly affected the
community, as well as the growth of great hospital complexes, some that are one of a kind in the
United States. The twentieth century, however, had a negative economic effect on the
neighborhood and many of the original owners moved out, creating rental units and encouraging
a lower economic class to enter. The 1960s brought city-wide renewal plans, which changed the
face of Corryville. Riots then swept the city and new nightlife sprung up. These events helped
make Corryville what it is today.
A Look Back
In 1797, William McMillan bought land on the hilltop that is now Corryville. He built his
house there and when he died in 1804, McMillan left his house and land to his nephew, William
Corry. Corry owned the property for the next twenty-nine years. Upon his death, his heirs
divided up the land and in 1843 began talks of a plan for a village. This plan was realized and
Corryville, as Corry’s heirs dubbed the area, became a farming center, sending much of its goods
down the hill into the city (Giglierano 1988).
At this time, many of the people who began settling in the community were German
immigrants or of German descent. They were mostly, what would be termed today “middle
class” and most were artisans and craftsmen. The good quality of their work can still be seen
today in their homes, which stand throughout the neighborhood (City Planning Commission
1960).
25
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
The year 1870 saw the community being surrounded by other neighborhoods and then
becoming annexed by the City of Cincinnati. Six years later, the Bellevue Inclined Plane
Railway was constructed on the hillside and extended through Vine Street, the business district
of the time, to allow residents of the area easier access to employment in downtown Cincinnati.
Due to the rail lines businesses grew, including saloons and beer gardens (again, part of the
Germanic tradition) (Giglierano 1988). The most famous of these beer gardens, Mecklenburg’s
Garden (now Mecklenburg Gardens)6 opened in 1865 and still exists. The street cars brought
people from all over the city directly into the heart of Corryville’s Vine Street business district,
which is located in the same place today.
A group of Episcopal women, in 1884, got together and organized the Hospital of
Protestant Episcopal Church, which offered free medical care to poor children. It acted as a place
of healing and learning, as teachers and “housemothers” also volunteered. The Hospital,
originally located outside of Corryville, moved closer, to Mount Auburn. A new wing was
added, and in 1921, it was renamed The Children’s Hospital. Five years later, the Hospital with
its children was moved to Corryville. It was not until 1974, however, that a new building
constructed. The institution was reopened and renamed Children’s Hospital Medical Center
(Giglierano 1988). Since the permanent name change, Children’s Hospital has expanded to
include several other buildings, as well as to provide outpatient services to communities around
the Greater Cincinnati area (www.cincinnatichildrens.org).
Early to Mid Twentieth Century
The twentieth century hit Corryville hard. Mass production became the way to make
products quickly and cheaply. The craftsmen still working in Corryville lost much of their
business and many original owners began to move from the area, either selling their homes or
dividing their homes into apartments for rent. Lower-income families therefore began to move
into the community and the level of maintenance in the neighborhood as a whole declined (City
Commission 1960). As the original artisans moved, businesses were handed down in families,
but soon, the artisans’ descendents also moved, or died and those crafts were lost. Streets of
Corryville, which had not been built for cars, became full of traffic. Lawns were replaced with
small driveways and garages (Giglierano 1988). A result of the influx of automobiles was a high
turnover of rental units and as lending institutions would only give out loans that were short-term
with high equity, less people saw the purpose in updating the properties of the community (City
Commission 1960).
During this time, Corryville began to expand greatly. The University of Cincinnati (UC)
opened in 1894 and student enrollment grew quickly, from 500 students in 1894 to 12,500 in
1960 to 35,500 in 2006 (City Commission 1960 and www.uc.edu). In 1915 Cincinnati General
Hospital was constructed near UC in order to provide experience for those in the medical
college. It was to be a teaching hospital, as its founder Dr. Christian Holmes wanted. A new
branch, the Christian R. Holmes Hospital, opened in 1928 and coexisted with Cincinnati General
Hospital (Giglierano 1988).
Even as the hospitals began successfully influencing the Cincinnati area, the 1940s and
1950s saw an increase in the number of poor and renters, many of them students, moving into
Corryville. Many of those who relocated were African-American and also people from
Appalachia (Giglierano 1988). In fact, between 1940 and 1970, more than 100,000 people from
the Appalachian Mountains moved to Cincinnati. Mt. Auburn and Avondale, Corryville’s nearby
6
http://www.mecklenburgs.net/history.htm.
26
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
neighbors, saw a large movement of African-Americans into the population. Mt. Auburn’s
African-American residents in particular drastically increased: from 2% of the population in
1950 to 10% in 1960 to 74% in 1970 (Lewis 1988).
The 1960s to Today
In the 1960s, Cincinnati began a city-wide renewal project and Corryville was included in
this plan. The idea was to get rid of older structures, repair roads, create more parks and
playgrounds and construct more rental units that were affordable for those of low economic
status (Giglierano 1988). Corryville’s (and Avondale’s) Urban Renewal Plan of 1960 set out to
cater to the values of residents, including “pride in homes, convenience of nearby stores, easy
and safe vehicular access to the home, opportunity for family recreation, [and] good schools and
churches” (City Commission 1960). The plan was going to implement changes to the residents’
needs through a Mutual Assistance Program which would provide rehabilitation of the
community’s buildings and streets, with the help of residents. The Private Action part of the plan
would be the responsibility of each individual home, business, or institution owner, while Public
Action, the last part of the plan was handled solely by the city and included neighborhood
restoration (City Commission 1960). This plan resulted in the closing of one end of Vine Street
and the building of the Kroger complex, more street parking and the widening of St. Clair Street,
which became Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive.
UC also expanded in the 1960s, tearing down residences to put in parking lots and
dormitories. About 200 families had to move due to this expansion. The hospitals also expanded,
gaining new facilities, but also forcing more families to find other homes. Finally, the
Environmental Protection Agency constructed a building that took the place of another 250
families’ homes (Giglierano 1988).
The 1960s were tough on Corryville. There was a major loss in population, and in 1967,
an African-American man was accused and convicted of raping and murdering a white secretary
from Price Hill. Posteal Laskey was sentenced to death, though no concrete evidence was ever
presented in court. Riots broke out in Avondale and the National Guard was called in to talk to
black leaders of the time. Just one meeting resulted in heated arguments that caused the unrest to
continue, but this time it spread to Corryville and other surrounding neighborhoods. A few days
later, the Guard was able to restore peace and left, but the damage had been done. Many
Corryville businesses were affected and store owners had to replace broken windows and
products (Lewis 1988).
Despite these rocky times, the hospitals continued to grow, with Holmes and Cincinnati
General joining in 1979 to form University Hospital. By 1987, University Hospital had expanded
twice more and had become the largest hospital complex in the city (Giglierano 1988). Shriners’
Hospital, for burn victims, opened along side the other hospitals in 1968, adding to the constant
expansion in the Corryville area (www.shrinershq.org).
As the University of Cincinnati has grown, along with its student population, Corryville’s
business district has become an attraction for those attending school, especially in regards to
nightlife venues. Bogarts, Sudsy Malone’s, and Top Cats are a few places young people can
gather to hear their favorite bands. The German tradition of bars and beer gardens which are
located throughout the business district continues, including the famed Mecklenburg Gardens.
27
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
Conclusions
While Corryville’s residents have pride in their community and would like for it to be a
destination instead of a place to just pass through, the population of Corryville is still largely
transient, as will be seen in the following pages. The University of Cincinnati is the city’s biggest
employer and is located in Corryville; however, many people still travel outside of the
neighborhood to work. Also, the hospital complexes are a great asset to the City of Cincinnati as
a whole, but do not seem to directly benefit the residents of Corryville.
Before conducting this survey, many of the anthropologists were warned by residents and
non-residents alike to “be careful” when walking around Corryville. This mindset of fear,
whether real or imagined, may have a base in the turmoil that occurred in the 1960s when the
rioting hit Corryville. Some of residents interviewed enjoyed living in the neighborhood and
watched out for their neighbors, but perhaps the thought that riots had once come through their
community is still in the backs of their minds.
Corryville has the potential to have the charm of that small, working class, artisan-driven
community again. However, it will take the work of many—from residents, to city leaders, to
others—to get it to that point again. Perhaps this survey and the plans that result from it will be a
step in the right direction.
References
City Planning Commission, eds. 1960 Avondale-Corryville General Neighborhood Renewal
Plan. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Planning Commisssion.
Giglierano, Geoffrey J. and Deborah A. Overmyer. 1988 A Bicentennial Guide to Cincinnati: A
Portrait of Two Hundred Years. Cincinnati: The Cincinnati Historical Society.
Lewis, Dottie L., ed. 1988 Cincinnati: The Queen City Bicentennial Edition. Cincinnati: The
Cincinnati Historical Society.
Cincinnati Shriners Hospital. 2007. 20 November 2007.
http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/Cincinnati/default.aspx
University of Cincinnati. 2007. 20 November 2007.
http://www.uc.edu/about/ucfactsheet.html#enrollment
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. 2007. 20 November 2007.
http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/about/history/
28
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Corryville
Maria Venegas – University of Cincinnati
ABSTRACT As one of the five neighborhoods of Uptown Cincinnati, Corryville has
experienced a rapid growth of college students. The goal of this demographic report is to
provide general census information and to correlate this information with the current situation
where the expansive growth of the university has transformed Corryville into a college student
neighborhood. Additionally, I contrast the census population and housing from 1990 with the
current demographics of Corryville to see changes over time.
Corryville is one of the five neighborhoods of Uptown Cincinnati. Near the University of
Cincinnati main campus, Corryville has long been a hub of activity for University students,
faculty and visitors. Despite all this activity, Corryville still manages to create a cozy atmosphere
amid turn-of-the-century brownstones, where children play, adults relax, and most college
students live (www.cincinnatihome.org). Uptown Cincinnati, especially Corryville, has
experienced a rapid growth of college students. As the enrollment at the university increased, the
surrounding neighborhoods were absorbed into the university and changed by the new populace
(McGirr 2003). The goal of this demographic report is to provide general census information
such as total population, age, sex, race and households in Corryville and to correlate this
information with the current situation where the expansive growth of the university has
transformed Corryville in a college student neighborhood. Additionally, I will contrast the census
population and housing from 1990 with the current demographics of Corryville to see if there are
any changes over time. All census information about Corryville was gathered from 1990 and
2000 US Census Bureau data.
Census Information
Census 2000 counted 17,326 people in the neighborhood of Corryville, a 13.2 % change from the
1990 Census population of 4,439. Table 1 shows the total population distribution of Corryville
by sex compared to the universal population of United States.
Table 1 shows the distribution of population by sex, 53 % of the population of Corryville is
composed by males and the rest by female population (graphically represented in Figure 2).
Corryville
Total population
Male
Female
Table 1. Population
Number
Percent
U.S.
17,326
303,399,420
9,193
53.1
49.1%
8,133
46.9
50.9%
Source: U.S. Census 2000
29
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Figure 2. Total population by Gender
Race
The Census 2000 approached race differently than the previous census. Most significantly,
respondents were given the option of selecting one or more race categories to indicate their racial
identities. Data shows that nearly seven million Americans identified themselves as members of
two or more races. Because of these changes, the 2000 Census data on race are not directly
comparable with data from the 1990 census or earlier censuses. Caution must be used when
interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time (U.S. Census
Bureau 2000). Only one race was reported in 1990 that is why I will not compare the 1990 and
2000 population change by race in Corryville.
Table 2. Racial Distribution, 2000
Corryville
17,326
White alone
8,593
Black or African American alone
7,330
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
43
Asian alone
799
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
8
Some other race alone
137
Two or more races
416
Figure 3 shows race information for Corryville. In the 2000 Census, individuals could report
more than one race. People who responded to the question on race by indicating only one race
are referred to as the race alone population, or the group who reported only one race. For
example, respondents who marked only the White category on the census questionnaire would be
included in the White alone population. Six categories make up the population reporting only
30
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
one race: White alone, Black or African American alone, American Indian and Alaska Native
alone, Asian alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, and some other race alone.
Figure 3. Total Race Distribution
Individuals who chose more than one of the six race categories are referred to as the race in
combination population, or as the group who reported two or more races. For example, the term
Hispanic in Census 2000 was not addressed and many Latino respondents reported they were
“White or Black” or “Two or more races” thus, census 2000 included in the in combination
population of each race.
Age
The question on age has been asked since the first census of the population in 1790. The Census
2000 age data were derived from a two-part question that was asked of all people. The first part
asked for the age of the person, and the second part asked for the date of birth (U.S. Census
Bureau 2000).Table 3 shows the median age by sex in Corryville in contrast to the universal
population in the United States.
Table 3. Median Age by Sex
Median age
U.S.
Corryville
Both sexes
35.3
23.3
Male
34
23.2
Female
36.5
23.4
According to the 2000 Census, the national statistics show that in age the largest five-year age
group was 35- to 39-year-olds with 22.7 million people (8.1% of the total population). The
second-largest five-year age group was 40- to 44-year-olds with 22.4 million (8.0 % of the total
population). Four age groups experienced a decrease in population over the past decade: the 25to 29-year-olds (-9 percent), the 30- to 34-year-olds (-6 percent), the 65- to 69-year-olds (-6
percent) and the 20- to 24-year-olds (-0.3 percent). The female population exceeded the male
population at older ages (20.6 million women age 65 and over, compared with 14.4 million
men), but the reverse was true at younger ages (37.1 million males under 18 compared with 35.2
million females below that age). The number of people 85 and over increased 38 percent
31
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
between 1990 and 2000 while the number of people 65-to-74 years old increased by less than 2
percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
According to the U.S. 2000 census indicates that the population at Corryville is very young. The
median age by gender shows a significantly younger median age (23.3) in both sexes in contrast
to the median age in the total U.S. population (Figure 4). This younger population concentration
in Corryville is due to the population of college students that live in this neighborhood adjacent
to University of Cincinnati.
Figure 4. Median Age by Gender
Figure 5.Age Distribution by Sex
Looking at the age distribution of Corryville we can predict that a large part of the residents are
college students. The median age is 23 in both sexes (Figure 5). We can describe this group as a
transient population in that they likely are here for a few years and then leave.
HOUSEHOLDS
A household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an
apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied (or if vacant, intended
for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the
occupants live separately from any other people in the building and that have direct access from
the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one
32
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or
unrelated people who share living quarters (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
Table 4 describes the characteristics of Corryville households: with an average size of two,
Corryville looks like a population of single people or young couples.
Table 4. Corryville Household Facts
Households total population
7,128
Population in Households
14,740
Average household size
2.07
Families
2,285
Average family size
3.03
Housing Units
8,335
Households are classified by type according to the sex of the house owner and the presence of
relatives. Two types of house owner are distinguished: family house owner and non-family house
owner. A family house owner is a householder living with one or more people related to him or
her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all of the people in the household
related to him or her are family members. A non-family householder is a householder living
alone or with non-relatives only (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
Table 5. Family Households
Corryville
Number
Total
7,236
Family households:
2,285
2-person household
989
3-person household
551
4-person household
350
5-person household
164
6-person household
162
7-or-more-person household
69
Table 6. Non Family Households
Nonfamily households:
4,951
1-person household
3,407
2-person household
989
3-person household
280
4-person household
160
5-person household
59
6-person household
44
7-or-more-person household
12
Total
7,236
33
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
The current distribution of family households by household type in Corryville is 2,285 percent
out of 7,236 total family households (Table 5). The total number of non-family households
(Table 6) is 4,951 and 69 percent of those non-family households are occupied by one person
only, 20 percent by two and 3 percent by three or more persons. This data is significant because
it shows that the non-family households are occupied by University of Cincinnati students who
make those big percentages of people living in a single unit or with more persons. The
population of Corryville has increased since the last 1990 census nevertheless, the large
percentages of household type by household size has kept steady. In 1990 69% were non-family
households (Figure 6); and 49 percent of the households were occupied by one person (Figure 7)
which supports the idea that Corryville has been populated by college students from 1990 to
present.
Figure 6: 1990 Household Type
Figure 7: 1990 Household Size
Another aspect of Corryville to analyze is the increasing number of houses. In 1990 the total
number of housing units was 2,198, which can hardly contrast with the number of housing units
now. The steady flow of traditionally stable community elements caused the underlying
characteristics of the neighborhood to change. The ratio of homeowners to renters is high around
the university (
Figure 8) certainly due in part to the large student population attending U.C. The university is not
experiencing a specific decline in population around the campus, but rather on campus. As a
34
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
consequence, the vast array of existing rental houses around the campus have become available
to students and to displaced populations (McGirr 2003).
Figure 8. Distribution of Housing Units
Finally, Table seven and eight show the social and economic characteristics of
Corryville. Corryville is ethnically diverse, 50% of Corryville residents are White/Caucasian 42% are African-American and the rest are from other ethnic minorities. Within Corryville, there
is a mixture of residents who are highly educated as well as those who have low levels of
schooling. Twenty-two percent of the residents over 25 years of age have less than a high school
education and 26% have a post graduate degree and 64 % of the total population serve the labor
force. The population is heavily weighted to the 15-24 year age group and consists of significant
White and African-American segments. Incomes within these trade areas are almost half of the
U.S. percentages. Also 25% of the families and 34% of individuals live below the poverty level.
Table 7. Corryville Social Characteristics
Number
Percent
Population 25 years and over
7,633
High school graduate or higher
5,847
76.6
Bachelor's degree or higher
1,985
26
Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and over)
959
6.6
Disability status (population 5 years and over)
2,728
16.9
Foreign born
1,084
6.3
Speak a language other than English at home
1,819
10.9
(population 5 years and over)
35
U.S.
80.40%
24.40%
12.70%
19.30%
11.10%
17.90%
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Table 8: Corryville Economic Characteristics
Number
Percent
U.S.
In labor force (population 16 years and over)
9,599
64.2
63.90%
Mean travel time to work in minutes (workers 16 years
18.8
-25.5
and older)
Median household income in 1999 (dollars)
21,351
-$41,994
Median family income in 1999 (dollars)
$27,166
-$50,046
Per capita income in 1999 (dollars)
$13,291
-$21,587
Families below poverty level
583
25.5
9.20%
Individuals below poverty level
5,129
34.4
12.40%
Trends in Corryville housing, population, age, economic and social characteristics reflect
changes evident in numerous American cities throughout previous decades - white flight,
deindustrialization, and the movement of jobs and tax base to the suburbs but some other
changes are evident as well. As the University of Cincinnati has grown, along with its student
population, Corryville has changed its face to a more student friendly neighborhood. Information
about the demographics of Corryville are relevant to understand the community better, however,
before we can conclude that Corryville is working for the student populace, as the numbers
confirmed, more in depth research needs to be done.
References
McGirr, E. 2003. Uptown Consortium for County Commissioners. Uptown Consortium, Inc.
U.S. Census Bureau 2000 http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/2000_nat_res.html.
U.S. Census Bureau 1990 http://www.census.gov
36
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
Altered States of Social Reality
Melony Stambaugh- University of Cincinnati
ABSTRACT Connections between people creates a social network that extends the circle of
people that one knows to the larger community. These networks are also found in the
connections between the people we meet through work and volunteerism. This paper looks at the
connections made between non-profit organizations located in Corryville through membership
on boards of multiple organizations along with the economic impact they make on the
community. These connections help to move resources through the community.
The further a society moves away from being an egalitarian society, the more it is
necessary for government and non-government organization to care for the family and the
individual. Conversely, the more a worker contributes to the government, the less they have to
care for their self or their family. The network of kinship is replaced by the network of social
organizations. These social organizations, or non-profit organizations, have an impact on the
community by offering services to the community and providing employment within the
community. Another impact is in having a means to protect money from taxes by donating it to
non-profit organizations that are tax-exempt. I will look at the non-profit organizations located in
the Corryville area of Cincinnati to analyze the economic impact of these organizations by
reviewing the categories of services, the annual revenue and the sources of the income, and the
wages paid to the employees.
In looking at non-profit activity in Corryville, the discussion is limited to organizations
physically located in Corryville and registered with the United States government. Non-profit
organizations may be operating without registration due to not being required to register or to file
a tax return. The two main reasons to not file a tax return are having an annual income below
$25,000 or being a religious organization. While there are organizations that fall into these
categories that do file a return, it is not a negative mark for choosing not to file. Having said that,
it is likely that there are more non-profit organizations located in, or working in Corryville than
are found by Internet searches.
The method that I used to compile this data mainly utilizes the internet based
organization Guidestar: “Guidestar’s mission is to revolutionize philanthropy and nonprofit
practice by providing information that advances transparency, enables users to make better
decisions, and encourages charitable giving” (Guidestar.org 2007). A portion of this information
was discovered in the course of work that I have done for the Niehoff Studio. I am employed as a
Graduate Assistant through the Taft Foundation. In this role, I compile lists of non-profit
organizations located in the Uptown area of Cincinnati for Frank Russell, the director of the
Niehoff Studio. From the general list of organizations, Mr. Russell then chooses organizations to
obtain additional information. Therefore, the list of organizations is created for the Niehoff
Studio along with a portion of the in-depth data. To complete the picture, the remaining
organizations were researched outside of the scope of the Niehoff Studio (See Notes:
Organization).
The total number of non-profit organizations located in Corryville is sixty-nine. Of these
organizations, nineteen were investigated for the Niehoff Studio. According to Guidestar, “the
NTEE (National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities) classification system developed by The National
Center for Charitable Statistics” is a reference tool used to clarify the type of organization. Non-
37
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
profit organizations choose an NTEE code which describes the type of work that is a part of their
mission statement.
The two categories in Corryville with the largest number of organizations are health—
general & rehabilitative with twenty-one, and human services with ten. There are eight
organizations that do not list an NTEE code. To group the NTEE codes into broad categories,
services for individuals and families, has seventeen organizations, services for the community,
has ten organizations, and health care has thirty-four organizations. The category of heath care,
with nearly fifty percent of the organizations, is problematic in that it is not directed at a specific
community and instead covers a wide geographical area. While hospitals occupy a large amount
of geographic space in a community, the community that contains them may receive little direct
benefit through community services or taxes.
Figure 9. Non-profit Organization Distribution
Non-Profit Organization Distribution
None
12%
People
25%
People
Community
Health
None
Community
14%
Health
49%
In reviewing the organizations in Corryville, there are many categories without any
representation. These include the following NTEE codes:
C Environmental Quality Protection, Beautification
J Employment, Job Related
K Agriculture, Food, Nutrition
M Public Safety, Disaster Preparedness and Relief
N Recreation, Sports, Leisure, Athletics
O Youth Development
Q International, Foreign Affairs, and National Security
R Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy
U Science and Technology Research Institutes
V Social Science Research Institutes
X Religion, Spiritual Development
Z Unknown
38
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Knowing that safety is one of the key concerns of the people surveyed, the absence of an
organization in this category may be an area for development. Also, the lack of recreation, youth
development, and civil rights organizations may be additional areas for development. These
types of organizations could potentially empower the residents to take steps to create a sense of
safety and provide opportunities for the next generation so that safety does not continue to be an
issue.
Categorizing organizations is only one piece of the puzzle. It is also important to
understand the financial aspect of the non-profit arena. The organizations located in Corryville
have annual revenues of approximately $1.9 billion dollars. This amount is approximate due to
two factors. First, not all organizations have filed a tax return. Out of sixty-nine organizations,
fifty-two filed a tax return. Second, the tax return reviewed is the last one filed by the
organization. This means that the taxes are not all for the same year. For the purpose of this
discussion, it is presumed that the most recent return is a standard, or average, representation of
the finances of the organization. Of the $1.9 billion dollars, 2.7% is from direct contributions
from the public, 1.9% is from indirect contributions from the public, 5.4% is from government
contributions, and 78.1% is from program services. The remaining 11.9% is from sources such as
the sale of property and stocks, and dividends on investments. To define these categories, direct
contributions from the public are when an individual or organization gives money directly to the
non-profit organization. Indirect contributions are funds given to an intermediary organization
such as United Way or Community Chest, which are then given to individual organizations.
Government contributions consist of grants given to the organizations and program services are
payments for services rendered.
Figure 10. Distribution of Revenue
Distribution of Revenue
Direct Public
3%
Indirect Public
2%
Government
6%
Direct Public
Indirect Public
Government
Program Fees
Program Fees
89%
From this data, one can clearly see that program services are the main source of revenue
for non-profits in Corryville. This is not surprising due to the abundance of hospitals in this
community with Children’s Hospital being the largest with an annual revenue exceeding 1.1
billion dollars. Of the sixty-nine organizations reviewed, sixteen did not file a tax return and one
filed a return that was blank. Overall, there were seven organizations with revenue of less than
39
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
$25,000 who are not required to file that did file and twenty-six organizations with income
between one million and one billion dollars.
The annual revenue and the categories of services do not offer a complete picture without
looking also at the wages of the employees to see another aspect of the impact of non-profit
organizations on the community. While many people, including myself at one point, equate nonprofits with volunteers and charities, this is not necessarily the case. As we have seen already,
many non-profits charge for their services in order to have a steady workforce and to be able to
continue to offer their services.
Out of the fifty-two organizations that filed a tax return, twenty-two did not claim any
wages paid to either board members or employees. The remaining thirty organizations paid a
total of $563,116,162 in wages. This is only thirty-two percent of the total expenses of all fiftytwo organizations and range from a low of $1,500 for University Orthopaedic Science Fund to a
high of $371,157,033 for Children’s Hospital Foundation Cincinnati Ohio. On the surface this
seems like a great deal of money, however, our survey shows that the people of Corryville are
not working in Corryville, but rather are commuting. So, the benefit of these wages is going
outside of the community that the non-profit organizations are geographically located within.
Figure 11. Wages Paid Versus Total Expenses
Wages
$1,800,000,000
$1,749,881,277
$1,600,000,000
$1,400,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$800,000,000
$600,000,000
$563,116,162
$400,000,000
$200,000,000
$0
Total Expenses
Wages Paid
In conclusion, the landscape of non-profit organizations in Corryville, while somewhat
diverse in scope, lacks diversity in revenue and wages. This lack leaves Corryville without
benefit for hosting these organizations and without financial means to help the community and
residents. While this is not an insurmountable obstacle, funding is needed to address the needs of
the residents in terms of safety, security, cleanliness, and continuity of the population. But first,
we need to understand who lives in Corryville.
40
NT
EE
Co
de
E30
IR
Total
S Income
Co
de
501 66,549
(c)(
3)
10,977
Direct
Public
Non 501
N/A
e
(c)(
14)
Alliance
Y20 501
N/A
Liability Self(c)(
Insurance Trust
3)
Alliance
E32 501 36,620, 125,00
Primary Care
(c)(
367
0
Health
3)
Alliance
Finance
American
D40 501
N/A
Association of
(c)(
Laboratory
3)
Animal
Science
American
Non 501
N/A
Federation of
e
(c)(
Government
5)
Employees
CCDD
P11 501 279,963 5,519
Foundation
(c)(
3)
Center for
E70 501 1,094,5 971,59
Adolescent
Health Center
of Greater
Cincinnati Inc.
Alliance Credit
Union
Organization
Name
Vol 1. No. 1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indire
ct
Public
9,327
41
0
0
747,399
88,821
35,939,0 36,780,5
75
86
0
Notes: Organizations
Govern Progra
Total
ment
m Fees Expense
s
Progra General
m
Manage
Expense
ment
s
0
9,327
303,304
0
520,142
35,000
227,257
53,821
23,407,4 29,587,4 7,193,09
28
95
1
Compe
nsation
Salaries
, Wages
0
October 2008
3,197,41
6,538,13
1
13,406,9
88
1,187,63
2
Net
Assets
Childrens
Hospital
Foundation
Cincinnati
Ohio
Childrens
Hospital
Medical Center
Children's
Hospital Thrift
Shop
Childrens
Medical
Services Inc.
CHMC
Community
Health
Services
Network
Cincinnati
Center for
Closing the
Health Gap in
Greater
Cincinnati
Childrens
Dental Care
Foundation
Dept of
Pediatrics
Childrens
Hospital
P82
E32
E31
E11
501
(c)(
501
(c)(
3)
501
(c)(
3)
501
(c)(
3)
501
(c)(
3)
1,940
2,525,7
11
27,778,
794
N/A
1,170,5
40,211
2,359,0
18
0
0
0
33,216
,452
2,071,
479
1,036,
378
E24
E11
97,811,
223
501
(c)(
3)
501
(c)(
3)
E11
4
501 237,980 78,559
(c)(
3)
01
E11
(c)(
3)
Vol. 1 No. 1
0
0
0
33,398
,075
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,147,37
6
57,880,7
60
146,854
0
0
0
42
1,940
4,678
2,456,74 2,511,35
7
2
27,778,7 31,115,9
94
77
99,737,0 950,912, 1,110,43
00
356
5,964
0
0
0
13,087
1,486,25
5
661,121
56,742,9 1,137,77
81
9
87,812
31,115,9
77
0
0
1,213,56 2,511,35
6
2
0
0
0
0
371,157, 1,009,93 98,261,2
033
7,601
52
0
0
0
October 2008
0
(37,234)
(12,715,
500)
1,161,71
5,206
6,062,37
8
1,315,05
4,568
1,308,20
9
5
Convalescent
Hospital for
Children
Convalescent
Hospital for
Children &
Orphan
Asylum
Corryville
Community
Council*
Developmental
Disorders
Cincinnati Fun
Raisers for
Cancer
Cincinnati
Highland
Dancers
Cincinnati
Psychoanalytic
Institute
Cincinnati
Psychoanalytic
Institute
Foundation
Cinco Family
Financial
Center Credit
Union
Connections A
Safe Place Inc.
Non 501
e
(c)(
4)
E11
E24
N/A
501 101,630 67,666
(c)(
3)
501 51,096, 3,215,
(c)(
663
823
3)
501 8,512,1 3,384
(c)(
09
3)
0
F01
7,656,0
49
501
(c)(
14)
W6
1
G30 501 10,371
134
(c)(
3)
A62 501
N/A
(c)(
3)
B50 501 230,233 133,77
3
(c)(
3)
B99 501 446,002 29,455
(c)(
3)
3)
Vol. 1 No. 1
0
0
0
0
5,618
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63,446
235,752
12,087
88,228
43
0
1,923,08
3
47,447,3 49,996,1
88
10
27,115
6,865,76 7,444,32
7
0
0
60,622
0
20,707
68,163
10,000
0
0
40,601
1,628,32
2
49,996,1
10
67,595
2,169,99 7,357,70
2
0
8,000
90,946
0
294,761
0
18,291
86,620
32,382
151,223
0
October 2008
85,935,9
36
23,769,3
76
45,214
10,483,0
08
3,882,39
8
19,231
6,662
Health
Alliance of
Greater
Cincinnati
Healthy
Beginnings
Inc.*
Healthy People
and
Communities
Foundation*
Hearne House
Friends of
William
Howard Taft
Birthplace*
Gateway
House Inc.*
Friends of
Schiel*
0
15,891
1,636,
208
1,108,4
0
501
I72
P99
501 740,408 190,81
6
(c)(
3)
501
N/A
(c)(
3)
501
N/A
(c)(
3)
501 180,504 54,437
(c)(
,976
3)
18,441
N/A
8,169,1
25
E40
E21
F20
6,079
501 766,208 442,90
(c)(
0
3)
501
(c)(
3)
501
(c)(
3)
B94 501
(c)(
3)
A80 501
(c)(
3)
S20
Corryville
Community
Development
Corporation"
Department of H92
Veteran Affairs
Cincinnati
Foundation
Every Child
P40
Succeeds
Vol. 1 No. 1
0
0
0
0
2,068,
571
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
283,447
0
834,882
17,665
10,765
44
0
546,978
1,047,46
713,522
127,567, 165,727,
072
365
0
4,440,14 8,023,14
6
3
0
0
38,313
15,665
9,173
1,592
6,665,94 1,357,20
0
3
796,569
2,000
618,781
410,207
827,787
608,352
219,673
67,681
56,496,7 132,551, 33,175,3
98
989
76
0
976,571
425,392
0
October 2008
369,898
171,540
88,751,1
38
34,642
2,333,80
6
1,184,02
8
137,733
Little Lamb
Child Care
Learning
Center*
International
Society for
Heart Research
American
Section
Jewish
Hospital of
Cincinnati Inc.
Jewish
Hospitals Inc.
P60
House of
Refugee
Missions Inc.
Headquarters
Branch*
Housing
Opportunities
Made Equal of
Greater
Cincinnati*
IKRON Corp.*
P33
E11
E22
0
501 201,581 664,48
(c)(
,780
9
3)
501 4,531,3 571,00
(c)(
20
4
3)
501 200,477
484
(c)(
3)
24,943
88,741
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
410,024
541,186
501 726,131 67,897 70,100
(c)(
3)
1,051,4
87
115,853
22,154
(c)(
87
3)
501
0
(c)(
3)
501 693,436 472,56
7
(c)(
3)
501
(c)(
3)
G43 501
(c)(
3)
F32
L01
T99
Home for
Incurables Inc.
Inc.*
Vol. 1 No. 1
11,183
1,037,66
8
659,880
719,045
45
197,812
0
204,224
20,461,8
83
199,149, 162,999,
445
007
0
542,765
31,289
59,703
0
0
0
908,056
654,023
674,753
6,238
129,612
3,964
44,292
119,532
0
204,224
0
16,369,5 4,092,37
05
8
64,304,4 131,910, 31,088,8
05
108
99
0
682,509
409,805
0
October 2008
(374)
5,842,38
5
204,638,
164
166,178
213,289
66,265
2,349,76
3
0
Strings Plus
Chamber
Society
Substance
Abuse
Management
and
Development
Pregnancycare
of Cincinnati
Inc.*
Psychiatric
Professional
Services Inc.
Radiological
Society of
Greater
Cincinnati
Society for
Parenteral
Alimentation
Southern Child
Care Center
Inc.*
Sparkpeople
Service Inc.*
Montessori
Learning
Center Inc.*
Ohio Credit
Union League
H99 501
N/A
(c)(
3)
P33 501 226,379 166,72
2
(c)(
3)
T50 501 101,652
695
(c)(
3)
Non 501
N/A
e
(c)(
3)
F20 501 1,060,5
0
(c)(
89
3)
501 460,058 46,191
(c)(
3)
Non 501
N/A
e
(c)(
6)
P40 501 1,028,4 613,34
11
3
(c)(
3)
F32 501 9,320,5
0
82
(c)(
3)
Non 501
N/A
e
(c)(
6)
B21
Vol. 1 No. 1
1,058,67
8
0
0
0
59,478
0
0
179
169,616
179,426
0
0
1,058,72
9
521,145
46
0
0
1,063,34
5
110,125
195,222
9,166,67 10,918,2
8
16
0
249,408
854,203
404,503
104,399
116,642
193,555
0
103,558
1,015,58
9
0
0
47,917
110,125
0
6,300,67 10,917,2 1,846,03
7
16
6
525,608
356,198
October 2008
50,361
879,212
31,157
2,367,87
7
770,300
107,786
P62
501
(c)(
3)
N/A
Non 501 595,110
0
e
(c)(
3)
T22 501 15,000 15,000
(c)(
3)
E12 501 2,136,7 600,00
(c)(
31
0
3)
United
Non 501
N/A
Services for the e
(c)(
Handicapped
3)
University Ear G42 501 8,286,8
0
Nose & Throat
(c)(
97
Specialists Inc.
3)
University
E60 501 15,598,
100
Emergency
(c)(
906
Physicians Inc.
3)
University
E30 501 8,146,8 48,900
Family
(c)(
93
Physicians Inc.
3)
University of
H30 501 1,103,5 882,95
Cincinnati
(c)(
49
1
Cancer
3)
Programs
University
B11 501 717,493 341,64
Orthopaedic
(c)(
6
Science Fund
3)
Corp.
Sudden Infant
Death
Syndrome
Alliance, Inc.
Thendara
Foundation
Inc.*
Thesing
Family
Foundation
UC Heart
Center
Vol. 1 No. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,597
543,938
47
194,021
207,664
503,879
978,459
7,941,55 8,053,02
6
1
14,904,4 15,898,1
45
24
7,990,05 8,358,74
7
3
1,516,45 2,248,04
2
2
0
0
2,001,44
7
0
425,000
246,595
2,500
118,938
1,500
0
435,838
850,798
4,454,77 6,157,19
6
0
63,958
127,661
996,729
8,096,07 11,159,2 2,113,91
5
13
1
4,840,64 5,932,09 1,885,61
9
8
8
697,326
0
0
October 2008
2,057,44
8
235,033
3,289,40
8
7,642,94
3
3,191,77
3
806,923
22,651
7,821,42
2
0
0
600,00
0
0
0
0
0
290,000
0
0
0
0
338,246
150,292
1,149,12 1,371,86
5
6
0
32,344
12,129,5 11,595,1
92
22
2,154,69 2,975,31
6
9
16,342,0 18,897,0
66
35
1,892,488, 50,795 36,164,6 102,844, 1,478,00 1,749,88
165
,193
97
708
3,118
1,277
35,707, 976,83 695,47 1,977,78 28,980,4 33,016,6
324
1
5
3
53
28
308,06
0
0
0
0
0
2,599,
958
692,024
48
83,551
951,468
296,067
142,052
412,039
42,179
8,240
563,116, 1,549,20 191,663,
162
0,169
989
10,829,1 29,792,3 3,685,84
57
11
6
764,794
0
0
3,055,53 8,703,43 2,891,68
0
6
6
0
10,891,0 14,906,3 2,064,36
46
36
7
October 2008
References
Guidestar.com. “NTEE Classification System.” http://www.guidestar.org/npo/ntee.jsp, November 15, 2007.
* Denotes organizations that were investigated for the Neihoff Studio
Averages
Totals
1,454,2
39
501 12,149,
(c)(
117
3)
501 639,804
(c)(
3)
501 260,566
(c)(
3)
E65
501
(c)(
3)
2,745,8
36
501
(c)(
3)
B11
E02
18,947,
741
G90 501
(c)(
3)
Vine Street
S20
Community
Urban
Redevelopment
Corp.*
Wesley Child
P33
Care Center*
Varsity Village
MR LLC
University
Radiology
Associates of
Cincinnati Inc.
University
Radiology
Fund of
Cincinnati
US Tissue &
Cell
Vol. 1 No. 1
2,980,97
7,132
56,244,8
52
318,240
118,693
489,512
(8,325)
24,745,5
42
(78,897)
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
The Methodology of the Corryville Survey
Elizabeth Wehri- University of Cincinnati
ABSTRACT: The Corryville survey project, undertaken by graduate and undergraduate
Anthropology students in collaboration with the Architecture and Planning students at the
University of Cincinnati, originated as a lesson in the proper methodological techniques of
development, administration and interpretation of an Anthropological survey. The formation of
a methodology for the survey was a major portion of the academic quarter. Students created a
survey form, randomized the sample and synthesized the data. This project, while developing
proper survey techniques, also created a realization about the feelings and perceptions cultural
anthropologists experience when going into the field.
Neighborhoods are complex organisms requiring intricate methods of study. One way in
which to study a neighborhood is to survey community members with a questionnaire about their
way of life within that area. Anthropology students of the Calhoun Corridor course, studying
Corryville, learned the methods and processes of conducting a survey in a neighborhood setting.
Throughout the process these students identified goals, analyzed their own accomplishments and
fears, as well as learned proper survey methods.
The goal for the students at the beginning of the quarter was to learn survey methods as
well as learn how to analyze the collected data by coding and using Microsoft Excel and SPSS
programs. Since this course is a joint effort with the architecture and planning students of the
Niehoff Studio, a new goal was realized. The anthropologists decided that it was necessary to
start a conversation with the architects and planners about thinking outside of their usual
development based design process, and instead think about the residents and what they want and
need in their neighborhood. Therefore, the anthropologists were also looking to find
generalizable data and information about the population in Corryville for the architects and
planners to use in this new design process.
Preparation for Surveying
The most important part of the survey process is designing a proper questionnaire to take
out into the community. Since the course is only a quarter long, approximately twelve weeks, the
process of developing the questionnaire was rushed. The form was developed over
approximately a two week period, in which preliminary questions were formed and discussed
among the students. Recommendations for new topics and questions were also taken from the
anthropologists, architects and planners, until the final draft of the questionnaire was shaped. In
larger studies, the final form of the questionnaire would be tested, but since there were
constraints on time, this could not occur. Most questions in the survey were close-ended
questions for ease of coding, but there were a few open-ended questions for the more complex
topics such as the needs and problems of the neighborhood. The open-ended questions were
mostly able to be coded as negative or positive responses.
The actual process of preparing to survey the neighborhood was complex and involved.
The methods used in this research have face validity because they were determined by a
consensus of the student group (Bernard 2002: 53). Since this is a complex subject, content
validity is also important in this research, but one can never be truly sure if the research is valid
49
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
(Bernard 2002). According to Bernard, “Valid measurement makes valid data, but validity itself
depends on the collective opinion of researchers” (2002: 57).
In order to make this research as valid as possible, the students decided that this must be a
random surveying process. To start this process of randomization, they began by looking at and
numbering the blocks on a map of Corryville. By numbering the blocks, the anthropologists were
able to use a random number table to select the blocks to be surveyed. This gave each block a
chance to be chosen, leaving out bias. In the random number table, the first two numbers of each
row were used as the block numbers. The numbers had to be between one and forty-four, being
careful not to choose the same block twice. Once the initial block numbers were chosen, another
map of the area was created highlighting the selected blocks (Figure 12).
At this point in the process, survey groups were formed. These groups consisted of one
graduate student and one to two undergraduate anthropologists. These groups also had to contain
either a male-female pair or a group of three females, for safety purposes. Once formed, each
group chose three to four blocks from the highlighted map of Corryville. Most groups chose
blocks within the same vicinity, but some had blocks various distances apart.
Within the set of blocks chosen by the groups, houses or apartment buildings had to also
be randomly chosen. The process of choosing the house started with the randomization of the
starting corner on each block. Again the students utilized the random number table to determine
which corner would be the starting point. Each direction received a number, one being the
northwest, two the northeast, three the southeast and four the southwest corners. Each student
group was encouraged to determine the way in which they used the random table to choose their
corners. Once the starting corner had been picked, the pattern of surveying was determined. The
anthropologists came up with the pattern of the first house to the left of the starting corner and
every two there after, until the groups allotted number of surveys was completed for that block.
For example, the surveyors would be going to the first house, the third house, the fifth house and
so on, until they completed surveying.
Several questions were brought up about what would be considered a “house” when
looking at row houses and apartment buildings. The students came to a consensus on how to treat
each of these cases when surveying. With row houses, each living space is considered a house,
even though they are essentially the same building. In apartment complexes, the same “1, 3, 5…”
rule applied for the floor of the complex as well as for the specific apartments being surveyed.
For example, on floor number one of an apartment complex with six apartments per floor, the
surveyor would choose the first apartment to their left and the third apartment on that side of the
hallway. The fifth apartment would then be the middle unit on the other side of hallway.
Questions were also brought up about how neighbors were not chosen and this why
process was truly random. The advantage of the process of randomization is that each house has
an equal chance of being chosen. So while a surveyor may not be going from one door to the
next door, interviewing neighbors, there is still a possibility that two houses next to one another
may be surveyed at different times. In order to have useable data it was determined that the
group had to collect at least thirty surveys from the neighborhood. That means that each group
had to collect between six and nine surveys. Each individual in the group was responsible for
administering or participating in the process of administering surveys on each assigned block. By
making this a random survey, the results are accurate within ±10% of the survey results.
50
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Safety
While developing the survey methods, safety was a big concern for all students involved.
The initial impression of the neighborhood was that it is a very unsafe place to be, especially if a
person was alone and female. Not only was this view expressed by those individuals from
surrounding neighborhoods and the university but also by many individuals who live in
Corryville. The groups were created so that the students would feel safe out in the community
and no one would be put into an unsafe situation. The group members were not only supposed to
be participating while the survey was being administered, but they were also supposed to be
keeping an eye out while the main surveyor was occupied. The students were encouraged to
always go out in a male-female paired group or a set of three females. If they felt unsafe, the
students were to leave and come back when they did feel safe. The students were also supposed
to take their student ID along while surveying. This allowed them to show the subjects that they
were students, giving surveyors credibility and sometimes even sympathy from some of the
subjects. Entering into houses or apartments or accepting food or drink from any of the subjects
was also forbidden.
Figure 12. Map of Corryville
51
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Administering the survey
There are specific steps that were also taken while administering the survey to each
neighborhood subject. When students approached the subjects, they were always required to read
the statement of confidentiality to the subject. They were also responsible for making sure the
subjects understood the statement of confidentiality. All subjects did not have to sign the
confidentiality statement, but they at least had to place an X on the signature line to acknowledge
that they read and understood the statement. The subject’s contact information was also
requested, so that the students could get in touch with them for any follow up questions. The
contact information was not required and it was the subject’s choice to give out the information.
The surveyors were also urged to keep a field journal or at least some notes about qualities of the
subject they were interviewing and whether this would be a house that could be gone to again.
Another part of the course goal was to learn how to analyze the data that was collected about the
neighborhood. The students were required to code all of the surveys they collected and enter the
data in to an Excel spreadsheet. Once all the data was collected, the anthropology students
learned how to use the SPSS program to create charts and graphs of the final data. These charts
and graphs were to be used in their final projects and presentations on the Corryville survey.
Conclusions
The safety issue played into the fear mindset the students developed by listening to other
students and neighborhood members. The anthropologists were placed into the “other” category,
being mostly middle class, Caucasian and female; all things which contradict the original idea of
who lived in the Corryville neighborhood. Students felt they were unsafe because the
neighborhood is generally thought to be low-class, black and male. Class, race and gender are the
main ways in which a neighborhood or even a person is sized up by the world around them.
Unfortunately, the anthropologists fell into this misconception as well. Once the students went
out to survey, they expressed less fear about the neighborhood, because they encountered
countless individuals who were willing to help with the survey and who were very kind to them.
There was always a sense of being watched by others in the neighborhood, for the safety of the
student and the safety of the other residents. This concept of safety and fear, although somewhat
necessary in any neighborhood in Cincinnati, may have been blown out of proportion in the
neighborhood of Corryville.
Methodology is a very complex process, in which surveyors discover not only something
about the neighborhood, but also something about themselves. The students in this survey
learned proper methods and analysis, even though they had quite a time constraint. They also
discovered that perhaps they should not always play into the ideas of those around them, but find
out about a neighborhood or a group of people through interaction and data collection.
References
Bernard, H. Russell. 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. 3d ed. New York: AltaMira Press.
52
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
Housing and Work in Corryville
Amanda Huber-University of Cincinnati
ABSTRACT With this project, I explored the issues of housing and work as they affect Corryville,
Ohio residents. At the center of these two intrinsically linked topics lie conflict and power
relations. Topics addressed include gentrification, stratification, deindustrialization and
representation. I researched past and present socioeconomic issues connected with Corryville
housing and analyzed data collected from our survey. The second part of the analysis includes
results of work-related questions from our survey and delves into the increasingly wagestratified workplace. Results from our survey were presented to architecture and planning
students as we aimed to engage in community-centered design.
In the following section, I explore housing and work as it relates to Corryville residents.
This information includes our survey findings and then draws connections with readings from
class. I address issues such as gentrification, stratification, deindustrialization and representation.
Though the subjects of housing and work are in separate sections, the two are none the less
intrinsically linked.
A Place to Call Home—Housing in Corryville
With survey information indicating 82% of Corryville residents rent, is this neighborhood
‘a place to call home’? Do renters feel a sense of ownership and entitlement in the community?
Furthermore, are these rent versus own numbers indicative of broader economic woes or are they
appropriate given the close proximity of Corryville to a transient university community? In this
section, I detail housing information collected from our surveys and explore past and present
socioeconomic issues connected with Corryville housing.
A majority of Corryville residents rent (The close proximity of Corryville to the
University of Cincinnati (and other anchoring institutions of the area) increases the demand for
short-term housing. U.C. is easily accessed from Corryville and numerous apartment facilities
and multi-unit residences serve the needs of this transient population. However, to say that the
high percentage of renters in Corryville is solely the result of the adjacent university ignores
broader social, political and economic issues that affect this area. From our readings in class, we
were able to better understand changes in Corryville in light of articles theorizing urban centers.
In The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements, Manual
Castells writes, “Any theory of the city must be, at its starting point, a theory of social conflict”
(Castells 1983). Social conflict theorists argue that social relationships are about power and
exploitation and directed by the result of class conflict. It is through this lens of social conflict
that I explore housing in Corryville.
Trends in Corryville housing reflect changes evident in numerous American cities
throughout previous decades - white flight, deindustrialization, and the movement of jobs and tax
base to the suburbs. Governments poured money into interstates andFigure 13). Among those
surveyed, the average rent amount was $532. (This number contains discrepancies in that some
respondents gave their personal rent amount while others answered the total unit rent.) The
average number of people per household among all Corryville residents is three (3.39), and the
average number of females per household is one (1.15). According to our survey, approximately
53
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
34% of Corryville residents are female compared to 51% female in the 2006 national average
(Census Bureau 2006). Additional housing information from our survey includes the number of
units per building and the number of bedrooms per unit: five (4.97) and three (3.21) respectively.
The close proximity of Corryville to the University of Cincinnati (and other anchoring
institutions of the area) increases the demand for short-term housing. U.C. is easily accessed
from Corryville and numerous apartment facilities and multi-unit residences serve the needs of
this transient population. However, to say that the high percentage of renters in Corryville is
solely the result of the adjacent university ignores broader social, political and economic issues
that affect this area. From our readings in class, we were able to better understand changes in
Corryville in light of articles theorizing urban centers. In The City and the Grassroots: A CrossCultural Theory of Urban Social Movements, Manual Castells writes, “Any theory of the city
must be, at its starting point, a theory of social conflict” (Castells 1983). Social conflict theorists
argue that social relationships are about power and exploitation and directed by the result of class
conflict. It is through this lens of social conflict that I explore housing in Corryville.
Trends in Corryville housing reflect changes evident in numerous American cities
throughout previous decades - white flight, deindustrialization, and the movement of jobs and tax
base to the suburbs. Governments poured money into interstates and development in these
sprawling areas. New homes built by middle and upper income workers spread rapidly
throughout the suburbs. The result was increased stratification of the housing market,
ghettotization of the inner city and rapid suburbanization outside of the city center. Inner city,
lower income residents remaining after this movement rented the aging, available housing stock,
often on a long-term basis.
Figure 13. Tenure
In recent years we have seen a sharp increase in gentrification. Wealthy workers desire
shorter commutes and closeness to the city center. Corryville is uniquely situated in the midst of
this debate. Poor, oftentimes minority groups of Corryville no doubt see the results of
gentrification across the Cincinnati landscape. Wealthier residents of other communities seek
financial gains and exploit opportunities in what they see as an up-and-coming neighborhood.
54
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
The cultural and economic diversity of Corryville may be threatened. In talking with a middleaged, African-American woman about her ideal neighborhood, she answered that Corryville was
ideal now and did not need to be changed. In the ensuing conversation, one could sense that she
did not want to be moved from Corryville and voiced her concern about neighborhood changes.
Enabling everyone to have a voice in the community is vital to address housing needs in
Corryville. In Streetwise: Race, Class and Change in an Urban Community, Elijah Anderson
chronicles changes over time to two communities in the Village-Northton area: one black and
low income and the other racially mixed but becoming increasingly middle/upper income and
white. These changes mirror numerous changes in Corryville such as white (and black
middle/upper class) flight and what we have seen and no doubt will continue to see, rehabitation
by wealthier populations. He explores street life and public settings and emphasizes the
importance of dialog among community residents (Anderson 2003). With 82% of Corryville
residents renting, it is important to engage renters, especially long-term renters, in open dialog to
foster resistance from exploitation by the wealthier and more powerful.
In better understanding the needs of the community and advocating for the residents,
anthropologists offer insight into the cultural politics of the neighborhood. Architects informed
of the community’s needs also aid the ‘subordinate’ culture in their fight against the ‘dominant’
culture. In his article Cities, Culture and Resistance: Beyond Leon Krier and the Postmodern
Condition, Thomas Dutton writes:
“…the city is the result of oppositional forces and actors where the fight for space is the
fundamental feature of cultural politics, wherein there is a maneuverability for
architectural intervention on behalf of resistant cultures. Because architecture
unavoidably lies at the intersection of culture and politics, it occupies a privileged
position with great potential for resistance. Architecture is about the politics of space and
culture and through particular combinations it is possible to promote alternative cultural
directions, politics and ways of life. In other words, politics can be an instrument of
architecture” (Dutton 1).
Anthropologists, architects and planners have a tremendous opportunity to act as advocates
mindful of other’s needs.
As suburban residents desire to be closer to work in the city, the proximity of Corryville
to downtown Cincinnati makes it susceptible to housing changes. Dialog and resistance among
community members are necessary to protect those in the community today. A challenge
Corryville faces is enabling and engaging renters, especially long-term renters, in the discussion.
Work and Wages in Corryville
This section of the paper will explore several work-related questions from our survey
such as the number of workers, number of female workers, workplace location, commute time
and mode of travel. Examples of low wage jobs listed in the surveys point to the increased
stratification of the workplace. Fewer middle class jobs exist as the city is divided between high
wage earners and low wage earners. This trend has affected the number of workers needed per
household, housing affordability and ownership, and quality of life.
With the deindustrialization of the city, plant closures and relocation decreased the
number of middle-class jobs available within the city center. Factories in urban locations
55
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
throughout the United States pursued cheap labor overseas or in non-unionized rural areas of the
country. The city now is the site of capitalist accumulation wherein we see a re-industrialization
within the high-tech, global information exchange sector. The result is a sharp divide separating
low wage/low skill worker from the high paid/high skill worker able to compete in these
information-centered industries. Manual Castells characterized this new informational city as “a
world in which control of knowledge and information decides who has power in society”
(Castells 1972).
In our survey, we found numerous examples of people working at locations such as
Izzy’s Corned Beef, Stop-n-Go, Highlands Coffee Shop, Subway, King’s Island, Meijer’s and
other low wage jobs. Among those surveyed, 72% of the household members are workers.
Among the 72% of household workers, 38% are females. Figure 14 demarcates the workplace
percentages with cities and suburbs showing comparable numbers. The average commute time to
work is 18 minutes. The preferred method of work transport is car (67%), walk (15%), bus (7%),
home (7%) and other (3%) (Figure 15).
With lower wages, employees must work longer hours and/or more household workers
must work to earn enough money. Those who lack technical understanding of the global flow of
information struggle to survive in these post-Fordism times. While we did not ask people their
annual salary, it might be an important component in understanding the needs of the community.
Our results indicate that low wage jobs are common in Corryville and that the number of
household workers is high.
This information affects housing such that people have less income for home
improvements or for the starting costs of owning a home. As a result, renting appears the best
solution for many. This leads us to the question discussed previously of how to engage in dialog
with such a high percentage of renters in the community. The issues are complex and
complicated. As we learned in class, no easy answers exist. However, as those concerned about
the community, we are more aware of the broader forces affecting housing and work in this
diverse and unique neighborhood.
Figure 14: Work Location
12
10
8
Count
6
40%
30%
4
27%
2
0
Cincinnati
3%
Home
Uptown
Work Location
56
Suburbs
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Figure 15: Work Transportation
25
20
Count
15
10
64%
5
21%
9%
0
Auto
6%
Bus
Walk
Work Transport
Other,Bike
References
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class and Change in an Urban Community. University
of Chicago Press (Chicago).
MIT Press.
Castells, Manual. 1983. The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social
Movements. University of California Press (Berkeley).
Dutton *
U.S. Census Bureau. November 2006. National Population Estimates For The 2000s: Monthly
Postcensal Resident Population, by single year of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin.
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/2005_nat_res.html.
57
Vol 1. No. 1.
October 2008
Constructive Chaos: Does Corryville Work?
Justin Bonar-Bridges- University of Cincinnati
ABSTRACT Presents data on community identity and satisfaction in Corryville. Is Corryville’s
current configuration advantageous to long-term residents, student residents, or other parties?
The results of the survey show that both long-term residents and students had problems with
Corryville’s current status, and that perhaps the district was not “working” at all.
Introduction
Thirty-six surveys were collected and coded. The demographic data of the survey closely
match that of Corryville’s census data. From this, it can be inferred that the survey methodology
was well composed and executed. With solid data underfoot, one has a platform from which to
make decisions as to what trends the data collected accurately record. However, before critical
examination of the survey data can be made, the data must be objectively presented.
The ratio of males to females in the survey data was exactly even (Figure 16). Although
the census data showed slightly more females in the community than males, the ratio was close
regardless. The average number of female workers in an household was one, though there was a
household that had four female workers in it. The average number of male workers per
household, at 1.44, was slightly higher.
Figure 16. Sample Gender
58
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Race data was not uniformly collected, but the number of survey participants that did not
state their race was not significant enough to disregard the data. 66% of the survey participants
accounted for were non-Hispanic Caucasians, 33% were African American, and 4% were of
Asian descent.
The age data of the Corryville survey is of particular interest. Though the average birth
year of participants in the survey was 1978, 62% of the participants were born in the 1980s. This
illustrates a wide gap in the age of Corryville residents, with the majority of older residents
having been born in the early 1960s or before. The two participants who were born in the 1970s
were both born in 1970, which did little to bridge the generation gap in the data between the
1960 group and the 1980 group.
Two questions were asked to assess how much money was spent by residents of
Corryville for living necessities. One question pertained to amount of rent paid, the other to the
amount of food money spent in the last week. The majority of participants in the survey were
renters, and the average amount spent monthly on rent was $530. It is worth noting that there
were individuals who did not wish to disclose their rent information. These individuals, along
with the non-renters, account for missing data in monthly rent. However, only two individuals
did not wish to disclose information pertaining to the amount of money spent on food in the last
week. The average amount of money spent by residents of Corryville on food was $290. The
most spent was $1400 ($500 more than the next highest amount), the least spent was $40.
Other subjects of interest were: education level based on years completed, number of
children, and preferred mode of transportation. The average amount of education level by year
was fifteen, which indicates that most of Corryville’s residents had completed high school and
some college. Residents of Corryville, on average, had 0.45 children. However, no parents
included in the survey had children currently enrolled in school. Eighteen of the thirty-three
survey participants preferred to drive to their daily destinations, with miniscule factions of the
other participants preferring to walk, bike, carpool, or take public transportation.
Although there was not enough time for life history surveys to be administered during the
course of the project, there were some open-ended qualitative questions asked. The purpose of
this was to answer the critical question, “who does Corryville work for?” By finding out what
residents did and did not like, as well as learning what services they wanted in Corryville, one
could theoretically make an attempt at finding out exactly who benefited the most in Corryville’s
current configuration.
There were many facets of Corryville that residents cited as positive attributes (see
Figure 17). A substantial portion of residents remarked that the quietness of the neighborhood
was one of its better qualities. Also, the feeling of community as well as its prime central
location in Cincinnati also ranked highly as points of fondness for residents. Other positive
attributes according to residents were: medical services, police presence, low cost, availability of
religious services, freedom, and in one case, a strong contingent of white residents.
However, not all of what residents had to say was positive (see Figure 18 of the positive
points that they contributed, they had just as many negative ones. The most glaring issue
plaguing Corryville is that of crime. Crime had nearly four times more mention than any other
problem in the community. Another complaint that was mentioned multiple times was that of
pollution in the community. Though it was not mentioned to the degree of crime, it was
definitely a widely despised facet of Corryville. Interestingly, the sense of community had just as
59
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
much of a presence on the negative attributes list as it did on the positive list (either due to a
disdain for the existing community or due to the lack of community altogether). Other
complaints of merit were: noise disturbances from neighbors and medical centers, teenagers,
fights, and parking problems.
Figure 17. Best Thing
60
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Fgure 18. Worst Thing
Survey participants were also asked if they felt that the University’s presence was good
for the community. The majority of participants felt that the University had neither a positive or
negative influence on Corryville (see
Figure 19). This perspective may have been skewed by the fact that surveyors introduced
themselves as UC students, and the participants of the survey may have wanted to avoid
offending their guests. Another explanation for the neutral stance is that a large contingent of the
Corryville population is transient, so their awareness of the community’s interactions with the
University would likely be limited.
61
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Figure 19. UC’s Effect
The final qualitative question asked of the survey participants was to describe the types of
services that they would most like to see in Corryville (see
Figure 20). The most widely given response, thanks to the strong distaste for Corryville’s
crime issue, was more policing. Besides that, there was an almost equal yearn for the following
services: recreational facilities, restaurants and entertainment venues, more shopping outlets,
trash clean-up programs, and even some individuals that wanted nothing to change in the
community.
62
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
Figure 20. Services wanted
Conclusions
With such a diverse and differing collection of likes, dislikes, opinions towards UC, and
desires for future growth, it is hard to pinpoint exactly for whom Corryville is “working.” Longtime residents are at odds with students, who they feel lack respect for the neighborhood.
Students, similarly, are at odds with long-time residents, who they feel are contributing most
heavily to the crime and trash problems of the neighborhood. Furthermore, residents also
disagree with residents, and students with other students. Perhaps Corryville is working for third
parties who wish to come in and mold the community as they like. Without an active community
base to stop them, they would surely have free reign to do as they please. However, it could also
be the case that Corryville is working for no one at all, and is in dire need of some form of
cohesion. Though further qualitative studies would surely yield more complete results for
examination, it can be said based on what work has already been done that Corryville is a
community in chaos.
Overall, the anthropologist’s collaboration with the Neihoff Studio was beneficial for all
involved parties. The architects and planners had the ability to hear what the community wanted
through the anthropologists while learning about anthropological methods. The anthropologists
had the ability to see how their data collection efforts could be influential in the designs of the
architects and planners and learned about each field’s methods. Finally, the community received
63
Vol. 1 No. 1
October 2008
a voice that it otherwise would not have had as well as an opportunity to get some idea of what
the future may hold for the city of Corryville.
The project was also a great learning experience for the anthropologists, who got to
perform and integrate applied anthropological methods in a real-world setting. By making,
conducting, and analyzing a survey, presenting that information to others that had a stake in the
data set, and coming together to produce this publication, the anthropologists got a taste of using
anthropology in a setting where things can go wrong and nothing is as predictable as it is in the
classroom.
The anthropologists also learned that answering important community questions relies
heavily on the questions asked in the survey. No conclusion could be reached about who benefits
from Corryville’s current social dynamic. Even by adding a simple yes or no question to the
survey asking if the survey taker was a university student, some more concrete inferences could
be made. The anthropologists learned a lot from the experience, and hopefully we can take our
new knowledge and continue our urban research in Corryville by carrying out life history
surveys and getting a more in depth picture of Corryville’s residents.
64
The University of Cincinnati Student Journal of Anthropology is a publication created by the
Students of the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Anthropology. The mission of this
publication is to display and demonstrate the academic accomplishments and research of the
Anthropology students of the University of Cincinnati, as well as, to encourage, teach and assist
students in learning the intricacies of submitting scholarly work to academic research journals.
Submissions:
All submissions must be sent via e-mail to the editor in chief of the UCSJA. If there are issues
with submissions please contact the editor through the University of Cincinnati Department of
Anthropology Website. Submissions must be provided in the Microsoft Word 2003 platform.
All documents must be double spaced, one inch page margins, page numbers and 12 point, times
new roman font. It is also asked that automatic and embedded footnotes are not used in the
submitted documents. This journal follows the American Anthropological Association style
guide for all other formatting issues and citation styles.
All submissions should include an abstract of 150 words or less, along with at least four
keywords for the document. Types of submissions accepted include: Major Research/Thesis
Chapters (5,000 word max),; Articles/Papers (3,000 words max); Book Reviews (1250 words
max) and Other submissions by special request.
All submissions will be evaluated by the editor-in chief, as well as, at least one of the members
of the editorial body. Submissions will be edited for adherence to the above listed guidelines, as
well as for overall quality. The UCSJA staff may submit their work, but it must be reviewed and
approved by at least two other members of the journal staff.
All Submissions and Inquiries should be directed to:
Elizabeth Wehri- editor-in-chief
wehrieg@email.uc.edu
ML 0380
or
PO Box 210380
481 Braunstein Hall

Housing and Work in Corryville

Transcription

Similar documents

View the members - National Multiple Sclerosis Society

Former Regal Theater - Port of Greater Cincinnati Development

Molly Lay - aicportfolios.net

Cincinnati Enquirer

Third Quarter, 2012 - Cinfed Credit Union

Nov - Bates-Hendricks Neighborhood

Rate Fairness Board Tyrone Jue, Communications Director

Page 6 - Key Cincinnati

JOB DESCRIPTION: GREAT WOLF LODGE HOTEL LOCATION