One neighborhood, two surveys · Portland, 1992 and 2015
Students studying their community
What makes a neighborhood worth remembering?
People, meeting places, businesses, trees, stories. Two teams of young Portland researchers studied the Alberta Street neighborhood twenty-three years apart. Their reports let you compare what they found, how they worked, and what they hoped would happen next.
This guide takes you into the reports already published by Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project (ORWW). Start with one question below, then return with a detail from each study.
For a class, a neighborhood history project, or a first visit. The reports open on ORWW’s website; the Library supplies the guide and your comparison sheet.
The two reports
The first survey · 1992
Alberta Street Cultural Resource Inventory with Recommendations
Gardner and colleagues describe the area’s history and resources, map what they found, and recommend neighborhood improvements. Begin with the project’s purposes on printed page 1.
Deborah Gardner, Andrew Clark, Delana Foster, Saretta Horn, Monica Owens, Samona Stroud and Tyran Ward. Report submitted to Urban Forestry, Inc., Portland, 1992.
Names follow the signed title page (PDF page 7). The scan also contains a front cover with six names and a later, 2011 reprint title page with different credits. The original pages remain as published.
The return study · 2015
Alberta Street Cultural Resource Inventory With Recommendations
Davis and colleagues revisit the neighborhood and the earlier recommendations. Their report explains the later study’s methods and limits, helping readers judge what can be compared.
Joshua Davis, Olabode Arigbon, Dominic Williams, Malachi Mandley and Cade May. October 20, 2015. The report credits ORWW and World Arts Foundation, Inc.; its methods chapter is by Bob Zybach.
The 1992 report is a scan; text search may not work. Links below give both the printed page and its position in the PDF. If your viewer ignores the jump, enter the PDF page number in its page control.
Alberta Street: one neighborhood, two surveys
Read the two surveys together
What changed? What would you check?
Choose one question or work through all three. Open the sources, record a detail from each report, and keep its printed page number with your observation. Source links open in a new tab.
These are historical studies. A difference between reports may reflect a different question, boundary or method, as well as a change in the neighborhood.
Question 1
How did the teams learn about the neighborhood?
Compare the sources of information in each study. Continue to the next page for interview methods. Which kinds of evidence could answer your own question about a neighborhood?
Begin with people, then compare the categories the teams chose to inventory. The 2015 report explains that some earlier categories were not surveyed again because of limited time and resources. What can you conclude, and what remains unknown?
Choose one recommendation from 1992 and follow the 2015 team’s review of the earlier proposals. What did the later authors say had changed? Keep their assessment separate from what you would need to verify today.
Notes stay in this browser; the Library does not receive them. They are not included in a shared link. Download a copy to keep them or use them on another device.
Reading questions by America’s School Trust Library with Codex assistance. Your observations are your own. Cite the original report authors and printed pages; these questions do not replace the sources.
In Soap Creek Valley, memories of a place meet printed sources and landscape evidence. Try a short reading and listening experience, or read Bob’s account of how his collection began.
Read these reports as records of their times. Names, descriptions, business listings and recommendations may have changed. The studies’ language and interpretations belong to their authors; a historical listing is not present-day visiting or safety advice.
What is available, and where
Read now
The complete 1992 and 2015 reports at ORWW. This Library page offers reading paths and a comparison sheet; it does not republish either report.
Supporting files
The 2015 project contents and bibliography link to source folders as well as reports. Some links open directory listings of images and working material, rather than a readable chapter.
Recordings
As of September 14, 2026, recordings have been identified in materials shared by Oregon State University. Copying and permissions review are in progress. The recordings are not available for playback here.
What still needs work
Matching recordings to interviews, completing and verifying preservation copies, and checking the permissions for public use remain separate tasks. Finding a recording is a useful step; it does not establish permission to publish it.
Care for a community’s record
The reports and interviews involve several creators and community members. The Library keeps their credits and source distinctions visible. The Alberta Street rights statement explains the current access limits.
Provenance
Source reports
Gardner and colleagues (1992); Davis and colleagues (2015). Original report pages and ORWW’s bibliography supply the credits and reading destinations.
Original editorial navigation and reading questions prepared by America’s School Trust Library with Codex assistance, September 14, 2026. No report or interview is republished here.
