THE LANDSCAPE OF SEWSH TORONTO: AN EXAMINATION
OF LANDSCAPE AS A REFLECTION OF COMMUMTY
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Graduate Studies
of
The University of Guelph
by
ANNE KAROLYN RENNERT
Ln partial fulfüment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Landscape Architecture
December, 1998
O Anne Karolyn Rennert, 1998 National Library Bibliothèque .nationale 1+1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Billiographic Services senrices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A OIJ4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de rnicrofiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in thïs thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author' s ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. THE LAN-DSCAPE OF JEWISH TORONTO: AN E-NATION
OF LANDSCAPE AS A REFLECTION OF COMMUNITY
Anne Karolyn Rennert Advisor: University of Guelp h, 1998 Professor N. Pollock-EUwand
This nudy presents a mode1 for the examination of landscape as a reflection of conununity and explores the distinctiveaess of Toronto's Jewish landscape in order to gain insight into the Life of the city's Jewish community. The study focuses on two centres of Jewish life in Toronto: 'the Ward' and the neighbourhood of Spadina Avenue. the hean of Jewish Toronto during the early 20~century: and the neighbourhood of
Bathurst Street. the cwrent centre of Jewish population. Using mapping, archival documents and photographs, hinorical accounts, and direct observation, the study identifies the distincti\.e landscape characteristics of the old and new Jer~ishenclavx and compares the landscape characteristics of the two periods. It demonstrates that the early community of East European Jewish immigrants and the contemporary Jewish community have much in common and niggeas that the landscapes of the old and new
Jewish enclaves reflect a shared meaning olcommunity. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1 would like to thank Nancy Pollock- Eliwand for her enthusiasm, thoughtfuln ess,
care, and patience throughout al1 stages of this project. I wouid also iike to thank GiI
Stelter for his valuable input and encouraging e-mail messages, Stephen Speisman for his the and assistance, Bob Brown For encouraging me to foilow rny instincts, and my
classrnates in the MLA program for their understanding and ficndship.
A big thank you must be extended to Neil Stemthal for his eagemess in taking on the roles of photographer and pro~~reader,and for his tremendous entbusiasm insight, and confidence in my ability to succeed.
Finally, 1 would like to express my moa sincere appreciation to my parents, brother, and grandrnother for their never-endhg encouragement and support.
Anne Rennert
Toronto December 1998 When at &st 1 undenook to document the landscape history of Jewish Toronto, I felt somewbat sorry that, as a new resident in the city, this hiaory is not my own. My great-grandparents and grandparents migrated fi-om Eastern Europe to Brooklyn. New
York and to Shawinigan, Sherbrooke, and Montreal Quebec. My history is Mbedded in the landscapes of those places. Upon hrther reflection it occurred to me that 1 am in fact, pan of a relatively new wave of Jewish migration to the City of Toronto. 1 am but one of so many young Jewish Montrealers who, unsettled by the threat of Quebec's separation fiom Canada, are drawn to a large and thriving Jewish community that is not too Far away fiom Montreal. Seeu in this light, 1 am a part of Jewish Toronto's recent hiaory, poised to leave my mark, if only a nick or a scratch. on its landscape. It is our shaping perception that makes the dgerence be~eenraw matter urd lurmkcape.
Simon Schama Landscape and Mernory, 1 99 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...... Vti
PREFACE ...... *.*.*...... *..*..*...... *.....*..*...... X
1. LNTRODUCTION...... 1
1 . 1. READING -mURBAN LA~WSCPLPE...... 1
1 . 2. THE CONSTRUCTION OF MEANINGIN THE LANDSCAPE ...... 4
1 . 3. RELEVANCETOTHE PROFESSIONOF LAWSCAPE MCHITEC~E...... 5
1.3.1. Posrnlociernisn~mci rhe Re-evtlltrnrion of Ehnic Places ...... 5
1.3.2. Coniniirnip Planning anci Design ...... 7
1 .4. C0NTRLBüTION TO THE JEWISH COh,MWlTY ...... 10
1 . 5. ~RODUCTORYNOTES ...... 1 1
1.6. OVERVEWOFSECTIONS~-9 ...... 14
2.1 . FROM POS~IODET~'\(?S~ITO IEU?SH TORO~TO ...... 15
3.1.1. Modernisnr ...... 15
2 . 1.2. Postmoderrrjsn~...... 16
21.3. Place ...... 1 7
2.1.4. Urban Enc Ime ...... / 8
2.1.5. Jewish Toronto...... 19
3. CONCEPTUAL CL-4RiF'ICATION .QND MODEL DEVELOPMENT ..o...o *.O**...... 22 3 3 . THE LANDSCAPE-COMMUNITYMODEL ...... 30
4.1. THECASESTUDY...... 34
4.1.1. Reading the Old Jewis h Enclave ...... 34
4.1.3. Reading the New Jewish Enclave ...... 36
4.1.3. Seeing LanBIrcrrpe Elenlents os Comrnitniy Chrncteristics ...... 36
5. BACKGROLTND OF STUDY ...... 38
......
5.2.NOTESABOUTTHE WARD ......
5.3.NOTES ABOUT THE SüBüEU3AN DEVELOPMENT OF THE BATHURSTSTREET
NEIGHBOüRHOOD ...... 46
6 . TELE OLD SEWISE ENîLAVE...... , ...... -18
7. THX NEW JEWISB ENCLAVE ...... 79
8. CONTiN-üITY AM) CHANGE iN TEE LANDSCAPE OF JEWISH TORONTO ...... 112
9. CONCLUSIONS ...... 122
9.1 . RELEC~ANCETO THE PROFESSION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ...... 123
9.1.2. Postmodernisnl and the Re-evdtrntion of Ethnic Places ...... 123 9.1.3 Comnizmiry Planning and Design ...... 2 24
9.2. CONTRLBU~ONTO THE JEWISH COMMUMTY...... 125
9.3. FINAL THOUGHTS...... 126
9.3.1. Tho Lnmkcnpe oflewish Toronto...... 126
9.3.7. The lnterrelntionship between Commitnity nncl Lnnrlsccrpe ...... 17 7
GLOSSARY ...... 129 LIST OF FIGüRES
FIGURE 1 . 1: f2AR.EREMNANT OF THE. OLD JEWISH ENCLAVE ON BALDWIN STREET ...... 12
FIGURE2.1 : CONCEPTUAL PROGRESSION FROM POSTMODERNISM TO JEWISHTORONTO ...... 21
FIGURE3 . 1 : RELATIONSHPBETWEEN LXNDSCAPE AND COMMUNITY ...... 32
FIGURE3.2. THE LANDSCAPE - COMMUNlTY MODEL ...... 32
FIGURE6 . 1: ELEMENTSOFTHEOLDENCLAVE LANDSCAPE ...... 48
FIGURE 6.2. JEWS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPüLATION, 19 15 ...... 1
FIGL~RE6.3. PEDLAR'S LICENSE, 19 18 ...... 52
FIGURE6.4. PROXIM~TYOF SYNAGOGUES TO JEWISH HOMES, 19 1 5 ...... 54
FlGüRE 6.5. PROXlMITY OF JEWISH HOMES TO PLACES OF JEWISH EMPLOYhLENT, C . 1 9 15 ...... 57
FlGURE6.6. THE LYR~CTHEATRE...... 59
FIGURE6.7. NORTFEAST CORNER OF ELIZABETHSTREET .WD ALBERT STREET, 1 9 16 ...... 39
FIGURE6.8. UGLSTRY OFFICELN THE W~RD...... 60
Ft~u~~6.9.AGNESSTREETCHICEN WAREHOUSE, 1910...... 61
FIGURE 6 . IO: ADVERTISEMENT FOR ENGLISHLESSONS ...... 62
r- FIGURE6 . 1 1 . SHOP OF t4S'ilOhcT G\; THE WMD ...... 03
Fl~u~~6.12.SHOM~NTHEWARD ...... 65
F~GURE6.13 : KOSHERMEAT MARKET iN THE WARD ...... 65
FIGURE 6.14. NEW YORK DAIRY RESTAURANT ...... 66
FIGURE 6.15. JEWISH MAN DRESSED IN THE TRADiTi0NA.L GARB ...... 68
FlGLTRE6.16. JEWSH~~~?THT.~U~TWAL~GTOSERV~CESINTHEW.LRD,C.~~~I...... 68
FIGURE6.17. JEWisH MAN WiTH A BABY ChRRIAGE ...... 69
FIGURE6.18. JEWSH MEN IN THE WARD...... 69
FIGURE 6.19: JEWISH PE~DLEP-iN THE WARD, 19 10 ...... 70
FIGLW 6.20. JEW~SHMERCHANT IN TKE WARD...... 71
vii FIGURE 6.2 1 : SYNAGOGUE IN THE OLD JEWSH ENCLAVE. BGILT C . 1930 - 1945...... 73
FIGURES6.22,6.23. SYNAGOGUESIN THE OLD JEWISH ENCLAVE. BUET C . 1930 - 1945 ...... 71
FIGURE 6.23. JEWSH MERCHANT ...... 76
FIGURE6.25. ROUMAMAN BENEVOLENTSOC~. C . 19 17 ...... 78
FIGURE7.1 : ELEMENTS OF THE NEW ENCLAVE LANDSCAPE ...... 79
FIGURE7.2. JEWS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION. 199 1 ...... 81
FIGURE7.3 : PROXIM~TYOF SYNAGOGUES TO JEWISH HOMES. 1998...... 84
FIGURES7.4. 7.5. PMGLOTS AT MODERN SYNAGOGUES . 1 998...... 85
FIGURES7.6. 7.7. STORESSELLiNG KOSHER FooD/JEWISH PRODUCTS. 1998...... 87
FIGURES7.8. 7.9. STORESSELLING KOSHER FOODIJEWISHPRODUCTS. 1 998...... 88
FIGURES7 . 10. 7. 1 1 : STORESSELLiNG KOSHER FOOD/JEWISH PRODUCTS. 1998...... 89
FIGURES 7 . 12. 7 . 13 : STORESSELLWG KOSHER FOOD/JEWISH PRODUCTS. !008 ...... -90
FIGURES 7.14. 7 . 1 5: STORES SELLKNG KOSHER FOODIJEWISHPRODUCTS, 1998 ...... 91
FIGURES7.16. 7.17. STORESSELLKNG KOSHER FOOD~JEWISHPRODUCTS. 1998...... 92
FIGURE7.18. JEWISHMEN WALKING TO SYNAGOGUE ON S?i..~B..IT. 1998...... 94
FIGURE 7 . 19. 7.30.JEWISH FvIEN WALWG TO SYNAGOGüE ON SH.~~B..I~'.1998 ...... 93
FIGURE7 2 1 . 7 22 . SIGNAGE FOR STATE OF [SRAEL BONDS AND UJ .A FEDER.L\TION.1 998 97
FIGURE7 .23. 7.24. THEHOLOCAUST MEMORIAL. 1998 ...... 99
FIGURE7 -25: THE RAOUL WALLENBERG~LEMORIAL, 1998...... 100
FtGtrRE7.26. b!ODEXNSYNAGOGUE.BClILTC . 1955...... 102
FIGURE 7.27. 7.28.MODERN SYNAGOGUES. BUiLT C . 1955 - 1990...... 103
FIGURE7 .29. BLLBOARDSALONG BATHURST STREET. 1998...... 104
FIGURES 7.30. 7.3 1: JEWISH DAYSCHOOLS. 1 998 ...... , ...... 105
FIGURES7.32, 7.33 : JEWISHCOMM~MR CENTRES. 1998...... 107
FIGURE 7.34. JWSH PUBLICLIBRARY, 1 998 ...... 108
FIGURE7.35. SIGNAGEFOR UJA FEDER~ON.1998 ...... 109 FIGWS 7.36. 7.37. SIGNAGEFOR B'NN BRITH CANADA, 1998 ...... 1 10
FIGUES 7.38. 7.39. BAYCREST CENTREFOR GElUATRIC CM.1998 ...... 1 11
FIGURE 8.1. COMPARISONOFLANDSCAPE ELEMm ...... i 13 PREFACE
in undertaking the development of this thesis 1 foilowed a vanety of patlis, took
many tums. and sometimes moved in circles. I could hear the words of a recent graduate
echoing in my ear, "No matter what the abject ofyour thesis, it should be something that you feel connected to", or, as 1 really understood them, 'You must idente the one thing that you feel moa passionate about". 1 was more inclined to be interested in a variety of things. No doubt it was the inter-discipluiary nature of graduate work in landscape architecture whicb anracted me to the profession in the &a place.
Mer much careful thought and consideration 1 did fuid my treasure. It was, as the story goes. there ail along. The focus of my thesis represents the coming together of three very deep-rooted interests: urban design, social science, and Jewish culture.
Growing up in Montreal no doubt contributed to rny fascination with architecture and urban desip. I need only close my eyes to picture the landscape of Montreal fiom atop Mount Royal to imagine its carefully woven fabric of oid and new architecture. of green spaces. roadways. and railways. set along the edge of the St. Lawrence River. I am at home in the urban landscape, continuaily inspired by its diversity and compiexity.
Pnor to my amval at the University of Guelph 1 eamed a degree in political studies. My interest in the inter-related fields of hiaory, geography, and international relations, aLi of which were central to my politicai studies experience, is as arong today as ever. From the time 1 chose to pursue a degree in landscape architecture, 1 have wanted to make a tangible connection between my undergraduate and graduate work
Most people whom 1 encounter regard my progression f?om social science to design as an illogical "great leap". To the contrary, both fields involve knowledge of dif5ereot societies and cultures, as well as an understanding of the patterns of interaction between different people and ditfereut points of view.
My interest in Jewish culture is relatively new. Throughout my teenage years 1 was, iike so many other young people? self-conscious about being difEerent 6om the majority of my peers and embarrassed by cultural stereotypes. Needless to Say, I did not embrace my cultural heritage. Several years ago however, something cbanged. I developed a curiosity and a need to truly understand what it was that 1 had so blindly disrnissed. 1 read. 1 took courses at a local Jewish centre. What at firn 1 imagined to be a fleeting interest has gradually become a true preoccupation.
By identehg these attachments I acknowledge the intimacy of rny connection to this work. 1 was not a casual outside observer. I read each book, studied each old photograpli, and observed the contemporary Jewish landscape with a keen interest in building upon my owunderstanding of urban design, poiitics, history, and geography, and upon my own experience of being Jewish. 1.1. READINGTHE URBAN LANDSCAPE
Architecture, as a discipline, has not seriously considered social and polit ical issues, while social hiaory bas developed wit hout much consideration of space or design. Yet it is the volatile combination of social issues with spatial design, intemvined in these controversies, that makes them so critical to the hueof Arnencan [sic] cities (Hayden 1995. P. 8).
in The Poiver of Place, Dolores Hayden ( 1995) demonstrates tliat forgonen or
undervalued social history cm be rediscovered through an examination of physical space.
The primary intent of her work is to rediscover and to celebrate the social and political
bistory of minority groups through close and careful analysis of the urban landscape.
No doubt one could argue that the sociology of moa any group is intirnately
comected to landscape. As human beings animate physical space. tliey confer rnraning
to it. The landscape may thus be regarded as an archive of human activit- imprinted.
however subtly, with the Life pattems of individuals and groups. These patterns
accumulate in layers, evolving and shifting as societal values develop and human
experience is transformed with the passage of tirne.
The urban Iandscape is a unique holding place of cultural history. It is a vast and
comp lex CO Uection of resident ial, commercial, industrial and recreational areas and
faciiities. It is home to a great man): people, with a great variety of identities and
interests, responsibiïities and attachments. The city is the place of oppominity and high technology. It is a centre of culture and commerce. No doubt the urban landscape is especially nch with human impressions. It is a colouriûl and richly textured mosaic.
The City of Toronto is particularly siflcant in this respect. Settled by a tiny
Anglo-saxon population in the 1600s and occupying only a nmow band along the no& shore of Lake Ontario, it has grown to become the largest, most prosperous, and dynamic city in Canada. It has also grown to become one of the world's most muhicultural cities, with close to four million inhabitants representing more than 75 different cultures
(Kasher 1997).
This study focuses on the landscape of Jewish Toronto. It draws upon Hayden's argument that the landscape of a place may be 'read' - that it teils a nory about the people who live there, and endeavours to demonstrate the distinctiveness of Toronto's
Jewish landscape as a means of gaining insight into the life of the city's Jewish community.
The audy asks three specific questions. First. what does the urban landscape of
'the Ward" and the Spadina Avenue neighbourhood, the heart of Jewish Toronto during the early pan of the 2oLb century2, Say about the early community of East European
Jewish immigrants? Second, what does the suburban landscape of the Bathurst Street neighbourhood, the current centre of Jewish population in the city3, Say about the contemporary Jewish community? Third. to what extent has the Jewish community of
Toronto changed over tirne?
No doubt one would be hard pressed to deny the existence of a diainctly Jewish landscape in Toronto in the early part of the 20" cenniry. It was 'the Ward', Spadina
Avenue, and Kensington Market. It was Dworkin 's News Agency, Halpern ' s Seltzer
Factory, and the Eiizabeth Street Confectionery Store. It was peddlers with pushcarts,
1 The area bordered by Yonge Street, University Avenue, Queen Street, and Coliege Street; the primary reception area for new immigrants around the turn of the century. Hereinafter referred to as the "old Jewish enclave". 3 Hereinafter referred to as the "new Jewish enclave". kusher butchers, and garment shops. It was men with long grey beards exchanging the
news of the day with spirited Yiddish voices. It was ten synagogues within !ess than one
square kilometre. It was, in &on, a little piece of shrerl Me, brought fiom Eastern
Europe and re-estab iished in the fertile soi1 of a Canadian city.
As the early years of the 2oLhcentury gave way to the later, the vas majority of
Jews moved nonhward, away fiom the onginal area of settlement. The hauses of the
Ward were demolished to make way for office buildings and hospitals, while Spadina
Avenue and Kensington Market saw the influx of Itaiian, Portuguese, Chinese, and other
immigrant groups. Today? Little evidence remains of the downtown Jewish enclave. As
the lives of individuals and groups of people change, the landscape responds.
There are some who deny the existence of a distinctly Jewish landscape in
contemporary oro ont o.“ Granted, the Jewish community is hardly immune to the
assimilationist ahanas of suburbia. Jews [ive in the same houses, work in the same
places, and shop at the same supermarkets as their non-Jewish neighbours. Jewish
children play the same games, dress in the same fashions, and watch the same television
programs as their nonJewish tnends. The fact remains that the Jewish population of
Toronto is the most residentially segregated of any cultural group in the city (Kalbach,
1990). Witli this residential segregation cornes a concentration of synagogues, Jewish
schools, and kosher stores. With it the sidewalks are alive with families walking to and
f3om synagogue on the day of the Jewish Sabbath. With it the streets are lined with
billboards inviting people to attend High Holiday services with one or another of
4 Conversstions with peers. Winter 1998. Toronto's many Jewish congregations. This is the stuff of a contemporary Jewish
landscape.
1.2. THE CONSTRUC~IONOF M~G iN THE ~NDSCAPE
in a 1938 lecture, surrealist painter Rene Magitte argued that 'What lies beyond
the windowpane of oui*apprehension needs a design before we cm properly discem its
form.. . And it is culture, convention, and cognition that makes that design" (quoted in
Schama 1995, p. 12). One may interpret Magritte's observations to mean that every
person perceives or understands the world, or in this case the landscape, through a lens
that is tinted by his or ber own ideas and expenences. To perceive the landscape through
such a lens is to conaruct meaning in the landscape. It is to give meaning to çomething that has no absolute definition.
The idea of "constructed meaning" is central to the work of architects, landscape architects, and urban plamers who have long endeavoured to design urban neigbbourhoods which facilitate the realisation of community. While many observers of the urban environment question the success of such efforts, it may be said that urban design professionals encourage the development of communities of people who are, at the very least, bound together by similar residentiaI tastes and concems and socio- economic characteristics. This is to say that architects and plamers facilitate the realisation of particular kinds of communities, or more sirnply, that they promote certain meanings of community.
Of course, not al1 communities are established by design. Many. W They have their own collective ways of seeing, and their own meanings of community. In such cases, it is community members rather than design professionals who build meaning into the landscape. indeed, every kosher store and every synagogue that is opened or established by members of Toronto's Jewish community may be perceived as a means of projecting or rooting community meaning in the landscape. Seen in this light, the landscape of Jewish Toronto is distinct because it is built of a very particular meaning of community. It is a tangible expression of a collective community vision. By identifying the distinctive characteristics of Toronto's Jewish landscape, this study endeavours to understand the meaning of community that is held by the city's Jewish population. Further, by explorhg the ability of the Jewish community to adapt to both the dense urban setting of the old enclave and the sprawiing suburban setting of the new enclave, the midy endeavours to provide insight into the ability of community to construct meaning in the landscape. 1.3. RELEVANCETO THE PROFESSION OF LANDSCAPE~CHITECTURE 1.3.1. Postmodern ism and the Re-evaluation of Ethn ic Places Since the 1970s, postmodem alternatives to the uniformity and impersonality of the modem movement have corne to occupy the mainaream of design theory and practice. The voices of Iane Jacobs (1964) and others (Venturi 1977, Rowe 1984) whicb calied for a reonentation of urban planning and design have been heard. Both the diversity and uniqueness of local urban history and culture have regained significance aud value. Ethnic places have re-emerged as meaningfùl parts of the urban landscape. In "Ethic Places, Postmodernzsm, and Urban Change in Houston", Jan Lin writes "pthnic places] have acquired a new local salience in terms of sentiment and symbolism, as much representations as social reaüties" (1995, p. 629). This new enthusiasm for ethnic places was the force underlying the 1997 Spadina LRT Public Art Cornpetition. Sponsored by the Toronto Transit Commission, the competition facilitated the installation of public art along Spadina Avenue in the heart of the city's Chinatowo. As one city employee explained, "The art program is intended to express the character of Spadina Avenue by celebrating its rich hiaory and cultural heritage.. ." (Mays 1997). The winning entry, MiUie Chen's 'Community Marker', features dragons and other n~ythologicalChinese creatures. The work of Dolores Hayden and other urban preservationists is also illustrative of this new enthusiasm for ethnic neighbourhoods and landmarks. Together with local citizens and other ageucies, Hayden's non-profit corporation, The Power of Place. has CO- ordinated a great variety of urban hinory projects, including the installation of public an, to mark signifïcant events in the lives of the Mcan Americaii, Latin American, and Japanese Amencan communities of Los Angeles. In her book of the same name, Hayden ( 1995) caiîs upon historians, preservationists, environmentalists, community plamers, artists, and others to reclairn urban cultural landscapes as public history. She encourages private citizens to broaden the practice of public hiaory and public arto to increase urban preservation, and to reorient the writing of urban hiaory. No doubt, there are similar movements at work in cities throughout North America and around the world. Armed with tremendous enthusiasm and encouraged by such groups as The Power of Place, neighbourhood groups and social movements are slowly but surely rishg to the occasion. The focus of this study. the distinctiveness of Toronto's Jewish landscape. is in keeping with the postmodem agenda. So too is its argument that, kasmuch as the Jewish landscape is a direct reflection of the Jewish community and the Jewish çommunity is a significant part of Toronto Me, the landscape of Jewish Toronto is wonhy of recognition and remembrance. 1.3.2. Commun ity Pfann ing and Design As already noted, a dominant theme in contemporary architecture and planning is the intercomectedness of urban design and community. To be sure. a variety of so-called 'plamed communities' have been or are being constmcted in the urban and suburban areas of Nonh Amerka and Europe. In 7he Comrniinit). in Urban Sociep. Lany Lyon defines plamed cornmunities as "new toms that are consciously created to improve the quaiity of We" ( 1987, p. 129). He maintains that the recent wave of interest in the idea of plamed community emerged 6-om the convergence of three classical community themes: the human desire to develop relationship s which are based on sentiment, tradition. and cornmon bonds; the widespread perception of cities as dirty and dangerous places; and the classic sociological belief that the ecological structure of a community is directly related to its social structure. The contemporary notion of planned community is not entirely without historical precedent. Ebenezer Howard's Garden City, Le Corbusier's Ville Radieuse, and Frank Lloyd Wright's Broadacre City ail explored the power of urban design to effect the realisatioü of community. The New Urbanism is the most recent movement ta explore the comection between community and design. Proponents of the New Urbanism advocate that the construction of a new "physical fiamework" for both urban and suburban development WUhelp to faciiitate the realisation of "economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health" (Kelbaugh 1997, p. 13 1). They recommend that the conduct of daiiy life be set in public spaces like çtreetç, squares and parks, that neighbourhoods be designed to accommodate diverse types of people and activities, and that neighbourhood residents be able to travel to work and surroundhg communities without the use of cars (Bressi 1994). Proponents of the New Urbanism intend that these physical transformations will ?estore a sense of community and an old-fashioned sense of neighbourhood" (Jason 1997, p. 82). The New Urbaoism has beeo the object of great cnticisrn. Many design and planning professionals and other observers of the urban environment perceive the New Urbanist agenda as a kind of prescription for "'social engineering". ûthers doubt that physical design ca. affect the social and economic aspects of community to any signifiuant axteut. The likelihood that design can effect the realisation of community was evaluated in a 1996 resident mey at Seaside, one of the moa prominent New Urbania communities in the United States. As Douglas Kelbaugh (1997) relates in Cmnm Place: TowardNeighbourhood and RegionaI Design, the weyhdings suggea that the design of Seaside did in fact aid in the establishment of emotional connections between residents and contribute to the development of a sense of community. Even if there is a direct correlation between design and community, the New Urbanist prescription for urban renewal does not adequately address the realities of the contemporary urban environment. New Urbanists aspire to re-establish the 'ideal' urban communities of a tirne gone by, or more accurately perhaps, to establish thek own visions of what community should be. This ambition is entirely incompatible with the fact that there is no singular conception or meaning of 'desirable community'. indeed, in the cities of modem North Amerka, social, physical, and economic diversity abounds. The needs and desires for residential, educatiooal, employment, social service, commercial, and recreational activities and facilities Vary among the many different social, ethnic, and demographic groups living in urban areas. In short, while the planned community may be a means to realise some degree of community development, a designer's vision cannot be the means to address ail of the needs and desires for community of an urban population. This study is intended to demonstrate that while community meaning may derive Eom the physical environment (as in the case of the plamed ~ommunity)~it may also be conferred to the physical environment. More specificaily, the audy is intended to demonstrate that in the course of adapting to both the dense urban environment of early 20' century Toronto and the sprawling suburban environment of the laa half-century? the Jewish community gave meaning to the landscape: It initiated the conamaion of institutions and other landmarks, and developed distinct patterns of activity which are central to its own very particular meaning of community. In demonstrating the ways and meaas by which community gives meaning to the landscape, the study is also intended to suggest an appropriate role for the urban designer in that exchange. 1.4. CONTRIBUTIONTO THE JEWISHCOMMUNITY in the busy, fast-paced dies of modem North Amenca it is al1 too easy to Live without due appreciation for hiaoric places and events. It is al1 too easy to forget the people who Lived to establish the foundation for contemporary urban life. History is invaluable, and while the history of urban North America may be comparatively brief, recent history is as meaningfil as is any other. inasmuch as Jewish people are taught the lessons of ancient Jewish history during the celebration of Passover, so they should have some understanding of and appreciation for their more immediate cultural history. inasmuch as North Amencan Jews derive a sense of identity fkom the events of the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel, so they should identa with the hiaory of the Jewish people in North America. They should know that their immigrant parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents felt so strongly for the life they lefl behind in Eastern Europe that they recreated aspects ofshretl Lie in North America. They should understand that the immensity of the suburban synagogue is a sign of modem Jewish pide and success. In short, an awareness of the Jewish landscape of Toronto may weii help menibers of the Jz~ishcoaununity to understand where they came fiom and where they are, so that they may chan a better course for where they are going. Several writers, most notably hing Abella (1990) and Stephen Speisman (1985: 1979), have undertaken extensive research to discover the people and events which helped to define the expenence of the Jewish immigrant in Canada and Toronto in the early part of the 20~century. This ç~dyis an attempt to take history one step Mer. It is an attempt to root history in place. lnasmuch as this study focuses on the landscape of the Jewish enclave in order to develop a sense of Jewish community in Toronto, it suggests that landscape may be a foundation upon which a dialogue about the experience of Jewish community may develop. Both the community and the landscape stand to benefit from this hdof exchange. A community that sees and explores the cultural history that is embedded in landscape has great strength. A landscape that is recognised as being invested with cultural meaning and association is more iikely to be valued and presewed. 1S. LNTRODUC~ORY NOTES The struggle to reach the hean of this matter was especially challenging for two reasons. Fust, the cultural laodscape evolves at such a temfic rate. So many difFerent people have moved into the original area of Jewish settlement. So many old buildings have been tom down or renovated to such an extent that their Jewish affiliation is scarcely recognisable. Moreover, only a handfùl of synagogues and Jewish businesses remain in their original locations. The aorefiont illustrated in Figure 1.1 is a rare remnant of Jewish life in the Spadina Avenue neighbourhood. The Yiddish writing on the window of the Italian Caffe bares witness to the building's hiaory as a Jewish grocery store. Second, betweeo the 1940s and the 1960s Toronto's growth was dominated by modem planning and design which gave little consideration to local culture or geography. While the cultural characteristics and associations of pre-war urban architecture and design rnay be readily identifiable, one must look more closely at the built environment of modem neighbourhoods in order to distinguish local cultural characteristics amida the uniforrnity and consistency of the modem urban landscape. Pnor to any examination of the particularities of Toronto's Jewish landscape it mua be noted that this study focuses on the Ashkenaiic Jewish community of Toronto, the community of Jews of East European origin. It focuses on the early community of East European Jewish immigrants and on the contemporary Jewish cornmunity that is largely Ashkenazic. This is by no means intended to discount the contributions of Sephardie Jews, Jews of Spanish origin, to the expenence of Jewish community in Toronto. It is simply a means of limiting the scope of the study. FIG~1.1: RARE REh4NAM OF THE OLD JEWISH ENCLAVE ON BALDLMNSTREET. Source: Anne Rennert. It mua also be noted that whiie the areas of the Ward Spadina Avenue, and Kensington Market represented the heart of Jewish Toronto fiom the late 19" century to the time of the Second World War, this snidy focuses on the downtown Jewish enclave circa 1915. No doubt the landscape of the dowmown enclave changed considerably between the 1880s and the 1940s. The year 19 15 marks the approximate balf-Iife of the enclave. it may thus be regarded as a signincant moment in the Life of the downtown Jewish community - a tirne of equal tension between the very early community of Jewish immigrants living in the Ward and the comparatively well-adjusted community of Jewish Torontonians living due north and wea of Kensingion Market. To be sure, in 1900, the Ward was the centre of Jewish Me in Toronto. In 19 15, the Ward was ni11 a vital part of Jewish Life in the city and so too was the neighbourhood of Spadina Avenue and Kensington Market. By 1930, few Jews remained in the Ward. Moa Lived in the neighbourhoods located immediately north and West of Kensington Market. Finally. it mua be noted that the conclusions drawn from this study are specific to the Jewish community of Toronto and that as nich, they are not intended to provide information about urban ethnic landscapes or Jewish communities in general. lt is intended however, that this midy may serve as an example for other inquiries into the lives of other communities over tirne. More specifically, it is intended that the mode1 developed for this study may be employed to examine the distinctive characteristics of moa any landscape as a reflection of moa any local community. 1.6. OWRVIEW OF SECI'IONS2 - 9 Section 2 of this study explores the conceptual relationship between poamodem design theory and the landscape of Jewish Toronto. Section 3 explores the ideas of landscape and community and presents a mode1 for the examination of landscape as a reflection of community. The methods used in the study are reviewed in section 4 and background notes about the hiaoxy of Toronto's Jewish community, the Ward, and the city's suburbao development are provided in section 5. Sections 6 and 7 discuss the distinctive landscape elements of the old and new Sewish enclaves and section 8 compares the landscape elements of the wo locales. Finally. conclusions about the landscape of Jewish Toronto are drawn in section 9. 2. TEEORY 2.1. FROMPOSTMODERNISM TO JEWISHTORONTO It has been stated that this study is in keeping with the postmodem agenda. In order to clam the connection between postmodem design theory and the landscape of Jewish Toronto, it will be useful to explore the conceptual progression Born poamodemism to place, place to urban enclave. and urban enclave to Jewish Toronto. This cladkation begins witb a brief discussion of the modem movement. 2.1.1. Modern ism The advent of modemism may be regarded as a direct response to the lavish omamentation and decoration so chenshed by the middle classes in the 19' century. The modern movemeut has been descnbed as "the pursuit of a serious utilitanan rationalisrn" (Ley 1989, p. 47), wherein functionalism and uniformity in design were the ultimate expressions of a machine-based mass society. Modemists dismissed the value of local history and culture and endeavoured to give expression to the culture of production. An early proponent of the modemist tradition? architect Walter Gropius affumed? "A modem building mua be true to itself, logically transparent and virginal of lies or triviatities. as befits a direct ahation of our contemporary world of mechanisation and rapid transit" (quoted in Ley 1989, p. 49). Accordingly, modem architecture is characterised by the use of plain materials and mass-produced components, and by its emphasis on undecorated daces, clear edges, and angular shapes. Modern urban planning has been described as the "utopian political edge of modem architecture" (Ley 1989. p. 50). Its proponents maintained that the social disorganisation of 20' century mass society could be eliminated through the establishment of a new social order based on the new technologies and produas of the day. The urban plans of the post World War Two penod typically include land use zones with clearly defuied edges, set-backs, roadway standards, straight hes. geometric la youts, and curviiinear areets. Art erial rosds separate residential, business, and industrial districts. Fences divide zones of single-family houses, apartment complexes, and commercial nrips. As Edward Relph describes, the modern urban landscape is characterised above ail by "its tidy patchwork of fùnctions, a place for everything and everything in its place"(1987, p. 165). 2.1.2. Postmodern ism By the 1960s. a great many design and planning professionals and other observers of the urban environment had become critical of the modem planning agenda. Lt was judged that the modem urban plan was "a blueprint for placelessness, for anonymous. impersonal spaces, massive structures, and automobile throughways" (Ley 1989, p. 52). Moreover, it was argued that the centralised rational plan bad destructive effects on urban life and that it threatened the very existence of community. Broadly speaking, the postmodem movement is a rejection of metananativrs, "large-scale theoretical interpretations purportedly of universal application" (Harvey 1989, p. 9), in favour of plurality and difference. As literary cntic Teny Eagleton describes: Post-modernism signals the death of such 'metanarratives' whose secretly terroristic fllnction was to ground and legitimate the illusion of a 'universal' human hiaory. We are now in the process of waking &om the nightmare of modemity, with its manipulative reason and fetish of the totality, into the laid-back pluralism of the post-modem ... (quoted in Harvey 1989, p. 9). The poamodem movement represents a major philosophical reonentation in planning and design. As David Ley writes in "Moderrzzsrn, post-modernism and the struggle for place" (1989), "Post-modem space aims to be liistorically specific, rooted in the culturai, often vernacular, style conventions? and often unpredictable in the relation of pans to the whole. In reaction to the large-scale units of the modem movement, it attempts to create smailer units, seeks to break dowu a corporate society into urban villages. and maintain historical associations through renovation and recycling" (p. 5 3). The postmodem movement is an affirmation that the diversity of both regional and historical styles and urban subcultures is significant. It is a stniggle to preserve and enhance places that mattered and an intent to iafuse the built environment with meaning. It is, more simply, a move to re-establish a sense of place. No doubt this study exemplifies the postmodern celebration of history and culture. It endeavours to remember the distinctive Iandscape of an ethnie enclave that is no longer, to see cultural distinctiveness in the contemporary landscape, and more generally. to demonstrate that the landscape is invested with cultural meaning. 2.1.3. Place The concept of place is not an easy one. The Oxford Er~glishDictioriary dedicates more than four pages to its definition. The dictionary variously defkes place as 'kpace; a particular part of space of defined or undehed extent but of definite situation; a piece or plot of land; a portion of space in which people dwell togethes; an open space in a city"; and so much more (Simpson and Weiner 1989). The concepts of place and sense of place have been much explored by geographers, architects, landscape architects, plamers, and others. This shidy adopts the postmodern understanding of place: Place is physical space that is infùsed with hurnan meaning or value. As Yi-Fu Tuan writes. "Space" is more abstract than 'place". What begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with value. Architects talk about the spatial qualities of place; they can equaily well çpeak of the locatioual (place) qualities of space. The ideas "space" and ''place" require each other for definition. From the security and stability of place we are aware of the openness, freedom, and threat of space, and vice versa. Furthermore, if we think of space as that which aliows movement, then place is pause; each pause in movement makes it possible for location to be transformed into place ( 1977, p. 6). 2.1.4. Urban Enclave An urban enclave is a special kind of place. In every urban environment there are places with which a particular group of people enjoys a very unique relationship. As Robert E. Park writes in The City, "Each separate part of the city is stained with the peculiar sentiments of its population" ( 1967, p. 6). The inierests and Lfe patterns of local residents give definition to the local landscape. in tum, the landscape projects a certain identity. It becomes readily identifiable - a distinctive patch in the urban fabric. Moreover, the locality becomes an object of residents' attachments and an important component of their own identities. Through the 1960s and the 1970s these distinctive places were labeiled "little worlds" (Park 1967. p. 40) and Wban villages" (Gans 1962). More recently, they are cailed %ban enclaves" (Abrahamson 1996). In Urbmi Enclaves: Ideotip atid Place iti America, Mark Abrahamson (1996) explains that urban enclaves are concentrations of residents who &are a distinctive aatus that is important to theû identity. They include specialised stores and institutions which provide local support for the resident's distinctive lifeayle. Further, urban enclaves are characterised by a stroag tie between the life-style of their residents and the geographic space the residents occupy. 2.1.5. Jewish Toronto The urban ethnic enclave, or the association of a particular ethnic group with a particular locality, is one of the strongest examples of human association with place. huuig the late 19~and early 2oLhcenturies immigrant groups from around the world settled in cities and toms throughout North America. Even as they adopted the New World ways of life, they held tightly to their native cultures. The majority of immigrants to the urban areas of North America tended to senle in close pro'cimity to their fellow countrymen and women, deriving a sense of security fiom the famiiiar faces, language, and cuaoms of their neighbours. in Ethic Menti-, Richard D. Alba w~tes, 'nie ethnic character of aeighbourhoods is oflen quite prominent, visible in the names and nature of their small businesses, in the style and exterior decoration of their housing, and in the skin colour. speech. and sumames of their residents" (1990, p. 254). He observes that inasmuch as the ethnic enclave is a concentration of ethnic institutions, organisations, and establishments, it helps to preserve and to strengthen ethaic identity and loyalty. It helps to instil in children a sense of cultural tradition and belonging. Even the members of ethnic groups who Live in more assimilated settings may gravitate to the ethnic enclave to visit with family and Wends, to purchase ethnic foods or supplies. or to attend traditional celebrahns. thereby reinforcing their sense of attachent to the group (Alba 1990. p. 254). Toronto is filled with ethnic enclaves. While the city was composed almon entirely of British immigrants until the tum of the century, by 1930 immigrants fTom other countnes accounted for roughly 20% of its population. By 1960. each of eight ethnic groups (Italian, German, Jewish, ükrainian, French, Polish, Hungarian, and Greek) numbered greater than 20,000 (City of Toronto Planning Board 1960). in the last decade there have been substantial increases in the number of immigrants Born Asia, Afnca, and the Caribbean. Today, the city's close to four million inhabitants represent over seventy- five different ethnic groups. More than a dozen of these have populations in excess of 100,000 hdividuals in the Greater Toronto Area (Kasher 1997). In his study of ethnic residential segregation in Toronto between 185 1 and 197 1. Warren E. Kalbach (1980) observes that Toronto's ethnic populations have long demoastrated a high level of residential segregation. While the vaa majority of immigrants who amved in Toronto during the late 19" and early 2oLbcenturies settled in a fairly well-dehed area that was close to the business core and industrial activities. the immigrant populations graduaily expanded outward. Ln so doing, Kalbach relates that the settlement patterns of most ethnic groups were characterised by 'distinctive directional movements" ( 1980. p. 17), with linle overlap between groups. The focus of this study is the enclave of Jewish Toronto. Historically the most residentially segregated of all ethnic-minority populations in the city (Kalbach 1990). the Jewish population continues to be highly concentrated. From the first wave of Jewish immigration fiom Eastern Europe to the present day, the places occupied by the Jewish population have had a tdydistinctive character. Figure 2.1 dsesthe conceptual progression fiom the theory of postmodemism to the Jewish enclave of Toronto. It illustrates that the concept of place is central to postmodem design theory, that an urban enclave is a specifïc kind of place, and that Jewish Toronto is a specific urban enclave. FIGURE 2.1: CONCEPTUALPROGRESSION FROM POSTMODERMSM TO JEWiSH TORONTO. POSTMODERNISM Physical space infused with human meaning and value PLACE Association of a particular group with a particular locality URBAN ENCLAVE Urban ethnic enclave JEWISH TORONTO 3. CONCEPTUAL CLARLI;'ICATION AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT The title of this paper. The Lanciscape of Jewish Toronto: An Emirtatiort of Larzdrcape as a ReJectiorr of Cornmimi& may seem adequately intelligible. The terms landscape and community are so much a part of common discourse. I observe the landscape as 1 drive along a country road. 1 admire a painting of landscape on my living room wall. 1 take an art class at the Community Centre. 1 lament the absence of community in the big city. What do these tenus reaily mean? So many landscape architects and geographers have endeavoiired to identlfy the real meaning of landscape. So many sociologists and plamers have aruggled to know the true nature of community. The body of literature produced by tbese scholars is extensive. Still, there is no consensus as to the proper definition of either landscape or community. No doubt the great variety of defuiitions and orientations, ideas and insights found in the literature aneas to the complexity and rnulti-dimensionality of both terms. The intent of this section is not to review the body of literature on the ideas of landscape and community. Only a bief discussion of some of the better known ideas and orientations is included in order to achieve working definitions of both teims. to discover the common ground between the two, and more specifïcally, to understand how landscape may be understood as a reflection of comunity. 3.1. THE LDEA OF L~SCAPE In their efforts to identify the meaning of landscape, some scholars focus on the etymology or linguistic derivation of the term ûthers endeavour to hdmeaning in its historical acd geographical ongins. Stiil others offer wholly contemporary interpretations of the term as it is employed in common discourse and in various areas of environment al study . In Discovering the Venuzczdar Lanhcape, J.B. Jackson engages in a brief discussion of the syllables iami and scape. He explains that the word fatid was traditionaiiy used to denote "a defined space, one with boundaries, though not necessarily with fences or waiis" (1984, p. 6). As weil, he relates that scape, pan of several compound words in Old English, was used to indicate "collective aspects of the environment" (1984, p. 7). Laadscape may tbus be understood as a collection of lands, or more specifically, as a collection of defuied spaces. Jackson also maintaios that the term landscape, so denved, could have meant "something like an organisation or system" (1984, p. 7). According to this definition. one might regard the rural landscape as a syaem of villages. farms, and rural routes, and the urban landscape as a system of commercial, industrial, and residential buildings, major and minor thoroughfares. side areets. public squares, and parks. in Pimiriiqg for the Landscape Idea, Nancy Pollock-EUwand engages in a discussion about the histoncal and geographical origins of landscape. Apparently, the lack of definition surrounding the term or the broadness of its meaning is, at least in part, a consequence of its "mixed genesis" (Pollock-EUwand 1997, p. 23). Pollock-EUwand explains that the origin of the term is threefold. It has roots as a concept of rural community (latzdschaft, artistic roots (laridrcchap), and roots as a bounded tract of land. The German word laridschaft originated in ancient times. It referred to "a collection of dwellings and other structures crowded together within a cùcle of Pasture' meadow, and planting fields, and surrounded by unimproved forest or marsh" (Stilgoe 1982, p. 12). in Conmon Ladcape of America. 1580 to 1845. John Stilgoe explains, 'The word [iu~dschafl]meant more than an organisation of space; it connoted too the inhabitants of the place and their obügations to one another and the land" ( 1982, p. 12). Implicit in this definition of landrchafl, is a comection between the physical environment and humaa behaviour. The term lanchchap was introduced in Holland during the later part of the 16' century. Larxkchap was used to indicate "a pictorial representation of countryside" (Barreii 1972, p. 1). More specifically perhaps, it signified ''the artistic and literary representation of the visible world, the scenery (iiteraiiy that which is seen) which is viewed by a spectator" (Cosgrove 1984, p. 9). in Social Forrnatiorz and Syrnbolic Latrhcape. Denis Cosgrove explains that larldchap was b'composed for its aesthetic content" and that it was intended to "excite a psychoiogical response" (1984, p. 17). This intent is exemplified in the work of 17' century landscape painters Iike Nicolas Poussin. Claude Lorraine, and Slavator Rosa. ïûeir ''picturesque" landscape scenes included idealised images of hills and valleys, clouds, uees, and classical architecture. It is interesting to note that înasmucb as landscape was an anistic vision, so it was infùsed ivith human meaning. Finally. the contemporary English word landscape is also rooted in Middle English, the Engiish language of the period c. 1 150 - 1475. During that tirne, landscape was "an identifiable tract of land, an area of known dimensions like the fields and woods of a manor or pansh" (Cosgrove 1984, p. 16). There is a wealth of contemporary literature which endeavours to iden@ the real nature of landscape. Within this body of Literature, landscape is treated as both object and subject, as personal and social. It is variously defined as pristine nature; rural envuonment (Stilgoe 1982); "land modined for permanent human occupation" (Stilgoe 1982, p. 3); and "what people see as they waik down the street" (Relph 1987, p. 3). It is variously undersiood as a product of individual perception (Schama 1996); a product of social and cultural forces (Cosgrove 1984); "a way of seeing projected ooto the land" (Cosgrove 1984, p. 269); and "a coocrete, three-dimensional shared reaüty" (Jackson 1984, p. 5). No doubt the definitions and perceptions of landscape noted here are only several of many. One contemporary exploration of landscape is particularly worthy of note. in The biterpreta~ion of Modern Larickcapes: Geographical Essqs. D.W. M ein ig ( 1 9 79) examines ten diverse, but not mutually exclusive. perceptions of landscape. They are: nature (the natural environment); habitat (the meeting place of nature and liumankind): artefact (the mark of human activity); system (the assemblage of natural and built structures and movements); problem (a condition in need of correction), wealth (a valuable resource); ideology (a symbol of cultural values and philosophies); history (a cornplex, cumulative record of naniral and human activity); place (a locality or environment, ernbracing "all that we live amida" (p. 45)); and aesthetic (the artistic qualities of specific features). Of these defhitions and perceptions of landscape, Meinig's conception of landscape as *'place" is the moa suitable definition for this study. The study is written with an understanding that the Jewish landscape is the place where Jewish people iive and work. To discuss the Jewish landscape is to discuss the sights, sounds. smells, and other idiosyncrasies of a particular locality. 3.2. THELDEA OF COMMUMTY Of the various conceptions of community found in the literature. several of the most basic understandings are here exarnined. The word community is a combination of two Latin words: corn, meaning "with", and unus, meaning "one". According to the Oxford Engiish Dictiotlary, "with" is commonly used to denote "a personal relation, agreement, association, or union" (Simpson and Weiner 1989). It implies the coming together of two or more persons or things. Community may thus be underaood as two or more perçons or things cooung together as one. As Mary F. Rousseau suggests in Community: The Tie ntar Bitih, the term may also be understood to mean "a unified multiple or a multiple unity of some sort'' ( 199 1, p. 3). In 7Ee Comrnur&y in &ban Sociev, Lamy Lyon traces the begiooiag of community sociology to Ferdinand Tonnie's Genieischaft und Gesellschufi (community and society), fira published in 1887. According to Tonnie (quoted in Lyon 1987). the terni Genieii~~chafrdenotes the types of human relationships that are typically found in extended families or rural villages. Such relationships are based on natural wiü. They involve sentiment, tradition, and common bonds, and are characterised by strong identification with the community, emotionatism, traditionalism and holistic conceptions of other members of the community. Altematively, the term Gesellschnft denotes the types of human relationships that are moa commoniy associated with modem capitalist States. These relationships are based on rational will. They involve individualisrn and emotional disengagement, and are characterised by Little or no identitication with the community, affective neutrality, and segmenta1 conceptions of other members of the community. Lyon ( 1987) identifies four major approaches to the study of cornmunity. They are: the typological approach (community on a xuraVurban continuum); the ecological approach (community as a spatial phenomenon): the social system approach (community as a social conaniction); and the conflict or Matxist approach (wherein the phenomenon of community is realised as organisations and individuais take sides over economic, political, or value conflicts). The vast majonty of literature on the idea of community assumes eitber one of the ecological approach or the social system approach. Central to the ecological approach is an understanding of community as a "physical concentration of individuals in one place" (Minar 1969, p. 12). Proponents of the ecological approach endeavour to discover community through the examination of specific technical information about a place or area, its population, land use, and other related elements. The common interests of comrnunity members are regarded as consequential to their common residence. In ne Coricepr of Comrnzuiiy David Minar explains The humac contacts on which feelings of cornmitment and identity are built are most likely to occur among people sharing the same piece of ground. The fact that they live together gives rise to common problems that push them toward common perspectives and induce them to develop organisational vehicles for joint action" (1969, p. 12). According to this perspective, one's sense of community must be rooted in place. To have a sense of community is to howthe physical characteristics of place, its population, its encra, and its history. No doubt the proponents of this approach would argue that the realisation of community has become ever more ditficult over the course of the laa half century, as the tendency of individuals to move fiom one place to another has increased. Proponents of the social syaem approach maintain that community is a social construction. It is an organisation of individuals, built of meanhgfùl interdependence and loyalty, and realised through communication and symboiic behaviour. in keeping witli this perspective. community study involves the identification and exploration of "social fields" (Lyon 1987, p. 16), the many and various layers of CO-orduiated interest and activity. in Commun@ Building, Jason A. Leonard maintains that the social structure that is community mua include both grand and ordinary practices. He \Mites that 'While concrete everyday communicative practices without grand rhetorical gestures are iike threads without aitchhg, grand rhetorical gestures without concrete everyday practises are loose stitches that soon disintegrate" (1987, p. xi). In a nmilar Light, Philip Selznick suggests that the greater the extent of social fields. the more highly textured the community. He writes, A group is a community to the extent that ir encompasses a broad range of activities and interests, and to the extent that participation imp kates whole persons rather than segmental iuterests or activities. .. The more pathways there are for participation in diverse ways and touching multiple interests - for example, worshipping in Catholic churches, attending Catholic schools, contniuting to Catholic charities, reading the Catholic press - the richer is the experience of community ( 1996, p. 195). Selmick (1996) lists seven interacting variables which mut be present in order to have fully realised community. They are: hiaoricity (shared history and culture); identity (the identification of self and other. self and locality. self and association); mutuality (interdependence and reciprocity); plurality (membership in variety of groups); autonomy (memb ers are unique and responsible persans); participation; and integration (integrative political legal and cultural institutions). Within the confines of the social syaem approach, community is both empincally descriptive of a social structure and normatively toned. It refers to both the unit of a society as it is and to the aspects of the unit that are valued if they exist and desired if they are absent. As David Mhar writes, "It [community] expresses our vague yeamings for a commonality of desire, a communion with those around us, an extension of the bonds of kin and fi-iend to ail of those who &are a common fate with us" (1969, p. 12). Colin Bell and Howard Newby observe that there is a dichotomy in community studies betweeii those who focus on the people and those who focus on the temtory (1971, p. 32). This dichotomy is highly problematic. Exclusive reliance on either the ecological approach or the social system approach WUinevitably ensure that the two maiu areams never meet, and yet the persuasiveness of the two approaches suggests that the true nature of community may well include aspects of both. To be sure, it would be difficult to diainguish social action within a family 6-om that within a community without some reference to place or area. Similarly, it would be ditficult to distinguish a casual gouping of individuals fiom a community without some consideration of common interest and co-ordinated activity. It is interesthg to note that Dolores Hayden (1995) also advocates a kind of blending of the ecological and social system approaches to the study of community. She argues that a more profound understanding of community history may be achieved through an examination of the intercomectedness of social issues and spatial design. In 'CDefinitionsofComnrunip: Areus of Agreement", a seminal piece in the field of community sociology published in 1955, George Wery undenakes a comprehensive examination of the body of Literanire on the idea of community. His work results in the identification of 94 separate definitions of community. The tem is found to mean a group, a process, a social system a geographic place, a consciousness of kind, a totality of attitudes, a common Lifestyle, the possession of common ends, local self-suficiency. and so much more (Hillery 1955 referenced in Lyon 1987). in Cornmunis. Stzidies Colin Beil builds upon Hillery's efforts to understand community by identehg the diainguishkg characteristics of the 94 definitions. He observes that the vast majority of the definitions include some reference to one or more of three elements: area, common ties, and social interaction. One might well conclude that these elements are the building blocks of community, the skeletal foundation upon which the particularities of community are established. The definition of community thus becomes "a temtorially orgaoised population with common ties and social interaction" (Lyon 1987, p. 5). 3.3. THELANDSCAPE-COMMUNITY MODEL This study developed fiom an understanding that the distinctive landscape elements of urban enclaves are infused with community meaning. It intends to demonstrate that much may be learned about communities by 'reading' the landscape - that is, by ident@hg the distinctive elements of local landscapes and recognising these elements as reflections of community. This section describes the development of a mode1 which may be used to identify the distinctive landscape elements of urban enclaves. The train of thought which lead to the development of the landscape-community mode1 is illustrated in Figure 3.1. The figure refers to the delinitions of landscape and community given in the previous section. Specificaiiy, it refers to Meinig's (1979) definition of landscape as 'place" or environment, and to Colin Bell's (1971) estimation that comrnunity includes three elements: area, common ties, and social interaction. The figure demonstrates how one might approach the examination of a place in order to discover infonnation about the area, cornmon ties, and social interaction of a community. It suggeas that one might gain information about the area of a community by observing the patterns of spatial relatiooship of a place (Le. patterns in the arrangement of specific built structures anû/or human components). Similarly, it suggests that one might gain information about the common ties and social interaction of a cornmunity by observing the place's common charactenstics and patterns of social activity. in short, Figure 5. i suggeas that to 'read' the landscape, or to see community reflected in the landscape? is (a) to examine ali of the distinguishing characteristics of a particular place, (b) to regard those characteristics in terms of patterns of spatial relationship, common characteriaics, and pattems of social activity, and (c) to regard those patterns and characteristics in terrns of area, common ties and social interaction. FIGURE 3.1: RELATIONSHIP BEïWEEN LANDSCAPE AND COMMUMTY. LANDSCAPE Patterns of Spatial Common Characteristics Patterns of Social Relations hip Activity Area Common Ties Social Interaction The landscape-community model is illustrated in Figure 3.2. Its inner circle is comprised of the three elements of community identified by Colin Bell: area, common ties, and social interaction. Its outer circle is comprised of three categories of landscape elements, each of which relates specificaily to one of the community elements. The categories of landscape elements are: patterns of spatial relationship, common characteristics, and pattems of social activity. The model suggests that ali pattems of spatial relationship observed in the landscape will provide information about the area of community, that ali common characteristics observed in the landscape will provide information about the common ties of community. and that al1 patterns of social interaction observed in the landscape will provide information about the social interaction of community. The landscape-community model is applied in the following examination of Toronto's Jewish landscape. 4. METEOD 4.1. THECASE STUDY This study may be regarded as an example of how a landscape may be perceived as a reflection of community. While it is not intended to provide any generalisable information about urban enclaves or communities, it is intended to ahthat much may be learned about the specific characteristics and activities of most any comunity by 'reading' the landscape. The study examines the defining characteristics of two Jewish enclaves (landscapes) to gain information about the area, cornmon ties, and social interaction of two Jewish populations (communities). It is intended that by comparing the old urban enclave and the new suburban enclave one may discover how and to what extent the Jewisb community has changed over the. As well, it is intended that one may achieve some sense of the extent to which comunity may be adaptable to a variety of locales. 4.1.1. Reading the Old Jewish Enclave Three methods were employed to identify the landscape elements of the old Jewish enclave: mapping, historical/compararive research methods, and direct observation. Mapping was employed to identa the areal characteristics of the enclave. The mapping process involved two steps. First, the distribution of Jewish population and the locations of Jewish residential areas, comrnerciaVindustria1 areas, and major institutions were mapped.' Second, any patterns or particularities in the spatial relationship s between 5 Maps included in Hiebert's (1993) study of the Ward and in the City of Toronto Tax Assessrnent Roils served as the basis for this step. the Jewish population and the commerciaVindustriaVinstitutional aspects of the enclave were noted. The most obvious patterns and particularities were identified as elements of the old Jewish landscape. HistoncaVcoqarative research methods were eqloyed to identq the socio- cultural characteristics of the old Jewish enclave. This process involved two steps. First, archival documents (including official govemment documents, newspapers, and periodicals), archival photographs, and historical accounts of the old enc1ave"ere examined to discover any common characteristics ancilor patterns of social activity among Jewish residents. Second, ali characteristics which were ment ioned or observed three or more times7 in the archiva1 documents, archival photographs, and/or hiaorical accounts were deemed to be significant and were thus identified as elements of the old Jewish Iandscape. Finally: direct observation was employed to provide supplementary information about the landscape elements identified using the above methods. As already uoted, most Jewish landmarks and other signs of a Jewish presence in the Spadina Avenue neighbourhood were removed, built upon, or adapted to meet the needs of subsequent populatious. As such, direct obseivation could not be employed to provide a thorough account of the old Jewish enclave. Stili, the few remaining Jewish landmarks, including synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses in Kensington Market, were examined to provide additional information about the identilied landscape elements. 6 Abeila 1990, Hamey and Troper 1975, Hiebert 1993, Speisman 1998, 1985, 1979 7 Babbie 1995 discusses the value of using tnangulation to corroborate and increase the reliability of the findings. 4.1.2. Reading the New Jewish Enclave Two methods were employed to identify the landscape elements of the new Jewish enclave: mapping and direct observation. As in the previous section. mapping was employed to idente the areal characteristics of the enclave. Again the mapphg process involved two neps: Fùa, the distribution of Jewish population and the locations of major Jewish institutions were mapped."econd, any patterns or particularities in the spatial relationships between the Jewish population and the institutional aspects of the enclave were noted. The most obvious patterns and particularities were identified as elements of the new Jewish landscape. Direct observation was employed to identify the socio-cultural characteristics of the new Jewish enclave. The observation process involved two steps. Fira. the area of highea Jewish concentration was observed to identiSl any common characteristics andlor patterns of social activity among Jewish residents. Second, all characteristics and pancms which were identified three or more times and aU Jewish monuments which were I observed one or more tirnes' were deemed to be significant and were thus identified as elements of the new Jewish landscape. 4.1.3. Seeing Landscape Elemen ts as Communiîy Characteristics Once al1 of the landscape elements were identified, the elements were soned according to the landscape-community model (see Figure 3.2). As the model indicates. Y Maps included in Torczyner's (1993) study of Jewish Toronto served as the besis for this sep. 9 The study assumes that any event or theme that is memorialized by a population mua be greatly meaniogful to the population. each element tells about eirher the area of the community, the commorr lies of the community. or the social interaction of the comrnunity. The landscape elements of the old Jewish enclave were then compared to the landscape elements of the new Jewish enclave and a List of lasting elements, lost elements, and new elements was developed. Based on the Lia, it was possible to determine the extent of similarity between the two landscapes and to draw conclusions about the reiationship between the old and new Iewish enclaves. It was also possible to draw conclusions about the relationship between the early and contemporary Jewish populations and about the Jewish community of Toronto more generally. 5. BACKGROUND OF STUDY 5.1. ~STORICALAND DEMOGRAPHICN~ES ABOUT THE JEWSH COMMUNITYOF TORONTO The evolution of the Jewish couununity of Toronto may be divided in10 four major periods. l0 'Tüe hst period extends fiom the mid-1800s to the tum of the century. During this tirne, a small number of Jews of English and German ongin came to Toronto in search of economic prosperity. They were predominantly middle class and fairly well integrated with their non-Jewish oeighbours (Kayfetz 1959). In 1856 the West European immigrants established the city's £irasynagogue, the Toronto Hebrew Congregation or Bond Street Synagogue (now the Holy Blossom Temple). More than a place of worship, the synagogue was a centre for educational, philanthropic. and social activities (Torczyner et al. 1995). ûuring the same period, the living conditions of Jews in Eastern Europe were rapidly deteriorating. Following the assassination of Tsar Alexander U, Jews in the Russian Empire were forced to relocate hom shterls or srnall villages to large toms. Under the Russian May Laws of 1882, Jewish movernent. assembly, and worship were restricted. Jews were barred nom entering the professions and excluded fiom employment in factories. They were denied the right to higber education and the ri& to hold public office. Moa devastating of ail, Jewish communities were subject to violent. govemment supponed, physical attacks or pogroms (Speisman 1979). Determined that they would no longer derthese injustices, nearly two million Jews fled Eastern Europe between 1880 and 1914 (Hiebert 1993). They abandoned the familiar Old World landscape in a desperate search for safety and peace in the New World. This mass deparime coincided with changes in Canada's immigration policy, to the effect that Canada was a popular destination for the East European immigrants (Hiebert 1993). The rnajonty of Jewish immigrants were attracted to cities like Montreal and Toronto, where the foundations of Jewish community were already established. The Jewish population of Toronto increased dramatically between 1900 and 1 9 1 5. It swelled from roughly 3000 in 190 1, to 9000 in 1908, 15 000 in 1909, and more than 32 000 in 19 13 (Hiebert 1993). The influx of the East European immigrants marks the beginnhg of the second period of Jewish community development in Toronto (Kayfetz 1959). The period extends &om the later part of the 19' century to the advent of the Second World War. As Ben Kayfetz describes in his essay on the history of Toronto Jewry, this was "a time of econornic struggles, of transplanthg the practices and values of Judaism between the values of the shtetl and the values of the New World" ( 1959, p. 25). Nearly all of the new immigrants who arrived around the tum of the century senled in the Ward, an area of less than one square kilometre, bordered by Yonge Street, University Avenue, Queen Street, and College Street (Hiebert 1993) (see Figure 6.2). Ln the early 1900s the Jewish community began a westward migration across University Avenue to Beverly Street and Spadina Avenue. This expansion was necessary in order to accommodate the growing numbers of new immigrants. It was also a sign of growing confidence and prosperity. By 1915 the majority of Jews iived in an area buunded by 'O Adapted fiom Kayfetz 1959. Spadina Avenue, Palmerston Avenue, Queen Street, and Coilege Street (Hieben 1993) (see Figure 6.2). While oniy a smail number of Jews remained in the Ward, the area maintained its "Jewish flavour" (Speisman 1979, p. 90) until 1920. in his essay on lewish immigrants and the gament Uidunry of Toronto, Daniel Hiebert alludes to the magnitude of the westward migration, descnbing it as a neighbourhood "invasion" ( 1993, p. 257). He observes that while ody one of 82 residences on Kensington Avenue, in the heart of the new neighbourhood, was occupied by a Jewish family at the tum of the century, 80 of the 82 residences were occupied by Jews in 19 15. The Jewish comrnunity had little choice but to expand westward. The Living accommodations eaa of Yonge Street were either too expensive or too nui-down. Those north of Bloor Street were also expensive and predominated by an unwelcoming Anglo- Saxon population. Housing in the area immediately wea of the Ward was affordable and fairly well-maintained. Moreover, the Dundas streetcar provided a convenient link between the old and new neighbourhoods (Speisman 1998). The East European immigrants of this period lay the foundation for Jewish life in Toronto in the 2oLLCentury. They eaablished synagogues, societies, schools, a hospitaL homes for the aged, welfare institutions, Zionist organisations. trade unions, business organisations, the YMHA, social clubs, Yiddish newspapers, Yiddish theatres, and formal bodies regulating education, dietary law, and charity. Many of these aiïi remain. It should be nored that while the foundations of Jewish Me in Toronto could not have been eaabiished without considerable Ne-mindedness and CO-operation,the Jewish conununity of the pre-war period was anythmg but hornogeneous. Indeed, the Jews were dedin terms of geography. They shared core values and engaged in sirnilar cultural practices. At the same the, the immigrants came fiom a great variety of countnes, cities. and towns in Eastern Europe, with a wide range of life expenences, ideas, and concems. in A Coat of Many Coloirrs: Two Centuries of Jewzsh Llfe it~Canada, Irving AbeUa describes? 'There were Zionists and anti-Zionists, socialists, anarchists. Yiddishists, secular and orthodox each with theu own agenda, each with their own plan for the survival of the Jewish people in Canada" (1990. p. 121). As weU, there were often explosive conhontations between the Jewish entrepreneurs and the Jewish workers unions (Hieben 1993). For these reasons, the Jewish community of the early 1900s has been characterised as one of "dissent and pluralism" (Abeiia 1990, p. 226). Solidarity in the Toronto Jewish community increased throughout the 1920s and 1930s in response to growing anti-Semitism (Speisman 1979). During the inter-war years, Jews were barred ffom hotels, beaches, parks, and golf courses. They were denied employment and their businesses were boycotted. The ability of Jews to rent property was restricted. So too was the admission of Jews to universities (Abella 1990). While incidents of violence were rare, the Christie Pits Riot of 1933 left an indelible mark on the collective Jewish consciousness. The riot saw the members and supporters of a local Swastika Club engage in a bloody Street fight against the members and supporters of an au-Jewish basebail team. It is reported that as the two sides battled through the night, the chef of police refûsed to intervene. Instead, he asserted that he wanted to give the "Christian boys enough time to teach the Jews a lesson" (quoted in Abella 1987, p. 236). In public opinion poUs taken before 1945, Jews and Orientals were singled out as the immigrants leaa wanted by the Canadian people (AbeUa 1987). irviog AbeUa (1987) maintains that the Jews simply did not fÏt into the concept of Canada assumed by the politicians, academics, writers, businessmen, and journalists who set the tone for society. The Jews were peddlers and shopkeepers in a country that wanted loggers and miners, homesteaders and farmers. Abeiia (1990) attniutes the anti-Jewish sentiment of the period to the proueration of Nazi propaganda, the need to identlfy a scapegoat in a time of economic hardship, and the fear that the seemingly limitless flow of East European Jews to Canada would result in the "mongelization" of the country. For the Jewish community, the emergence of Nazism, the Depression, and the officia1 restriction of Jewish immigration in 193 1 meant that the dissent and plwalism of the preceding decades wodd have to be replaced by understanding and unity. in The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937, Stephen Speisman relates, 'niere was a rea iisation that integation into North American society did not. in itself, ensure physical and spiritual wival. The future of Toronto Jewiy depended upon its ability to deal with its problems eficiently and as a total community" ( 1979, p. 342). The third period of Jewish community development extends fiom the years immediately foiiowing the Second World War to the mid- 1960s (Kayfetz 1959). This period was unique for four reasons. Fba, ir was a period of trimition corn a Jewisli community dorninated by East European immigrants to a Jewish community composed of individuals who were raised in Canada (Kayfetz 1959). Second, the lewish community was forever changed as a result of the Holocaust and the devastation of European Jewry. The Jewish communities of North America could no longer look to the long-established Jewish communities of the Old World for guidance and support. Moreover, the responsibility of preserving Jewish culnue came to rea with the Jewish communities of North Arnerica and Palestine. Further, as Canada's immigration policies were Liberalised. more than 12 000 Holocaust çuMvors settled in Toronto (Picard 1995). The absorption of these individuals, many of whom were severely traumatised by the inhumanity of their experience, posed new challenges for the Toronto community. Third, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was a source of tremendous confidence and pride for Jews around the world. Mer so maay years of forced relocation. persecution, and second-class citizensliip. there was a Jewish state in the Middle East. On the eve of lsraeli independence the Jewish community of Toronto took to the meets in celebration. Finally, in the 1950s some of the formal bamers separating Jews fiom the majority population were removed. In 1950 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the restrictive covenant clause barring the sale of property and houses to Jews and other ethnic groups was not in the public interest and therefore illegal (Abella 1990). Through the 1950s and 1960s quotas were removed kom universities. Jews advanced in the professions, the public service. university teaching and administration? and the political During this period the Jewish community moved northward along Bathurst Street. sipificant segment of the population achieved economic success, Jews were able to settle in more desirable areas. Moreover, the northward migration of the community was in keeping with the general development of suburban Toronto (Torczyner et al. 1995). The fourth period of Jewish community development in Toronto extends Born the 1960s to the present day. During this penod. multiculturalism was entrenched as a key component of Canadian ideology. As hing Abeila describes. The new multi-cultural Canada . .. is a far cry fiom the parochial country it was a generation ago. Multiculturalism is now an integral part of Canadian policy; diversity is encouraged. Protected against discrimination by legislation, encouraged to maintain their culture and hentage by govemment largesse, Canada's ethnic minorities are hally beginning to play their proper role in this country. Prejudice and hoaility have given way to toleraoce and respect ( 1990, p. 231). For the Jewish community of Toronto, this new openness gave nse to unparalleled growth and prospenty. Mer decades of inequality, Jews were fiee to study, work live, and play without undue restriction. Over the course of the last tluee decades, the contributions of Jews to Toronto society and to Canadian society more generally have been tremendous. By the 1980s Toronto had suipassed Montreal as the largest Jewish commuoity in the country. and the eighth largest Jewish community in North America (Torczyner et al. 1995). This was the result of large-scale immigration fiom the former Soviet Union, Israel. and South A£iica, and migration fiom Montreal and smaUer Jewish centres throughout Canada. in 1991 the Jewish population of the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) of Toronto exceeded 162 000 individuals. " 90% of the population (seven out of eight Jews) occupy a relatively narrow band that extends northward along Bathurst Street fiom St. Clair Avenue in the south to Highway 7 in the nonh. interestingly. this area accounts for Iess than 20% of the total population in the CMA (Torczyner et al. 1995). No doubt the very narrow distribution pattern of Jews in Toronto is indicative of a certain enduring stren_@ and cohesiveness of community. While the Jewish comrnunity of Toronto has succeeded in eaablishing itself as an integral part of the Toronto mosaic, many contemporary observers of North American Jewry fear that cultural assimilation may threaten the survival of the Jewish people (AbeUa 1990, Dershowitz 1997). To be sure, in 1992 the Canadian Jewish Congress issued a warning to the Canadian Jewish çommunity which estimated that assimilation was a greater threat to the Jewish people than anti-Semitism. This concern should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Jewish Day School enrolments per capita in Toronto are the highest outside of Israel (Abella 1990). Synagogue membership bas increased, and there are in excess of 200 Jewish community organisations in the Toronto area. No doubt, the Jewish community of Toronto is aheand well. 5.2. NOTESABOUT THE WARD The areets in the Ward were numerous, close together, and punctuated by alleys and laneways (see Figure 6.2). Moa of the houses were built in the 1850s and the 1860s. They were brick or auccoed fkame cottages of one or two aories. Very ofien. rear cottages and stables were built in the laneways, and the fiont yards were filled with rags and junk. Many family residences were forma1 boarding houses and many families opened theu homes to their East European relatives and neighbours (Speisman 1998). in 19 16. there was an average of eight people per dweiling in the Ward (Bureau of Municipal Research 19 16). While most dweilings had three to five rooms, the amount of Living space was iimited by the presence of sewing machines and other tools of home industry. The Ward was overcrowded, squalid and fïlthy. Roughly 10% of the dwellings had no water and nearly one third had no drainage. By 19 1 1, no less than 103 houses in 11 The 1996 census did not ask Canadians to identify theù religion. 45 the Ward were declared unfit for habitation. yet almon aU of these were occupied (Speisman, 1985). ln the early years of the 20" century, the more successfd Jewish manufacturers and merchants moved to Beverly Street and Huron Street where the houses were larger and more elegant. The less prosperous Jews who sought improved accommodations settled in the nmow sueets jua West of Spadina Avenue. Here, the houses were srnail, but acceptable. With the arriva1 of large numbers of immigrants in the 1930s however, the housing in this area also deteriorated (Speisman 1998). 5.3. N~ESABOUT THE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT OF THE BATHURST STREPT NEIGHBOURHOOD This study adopts the understanding of suburb that is offered by John Hitchcock in his exploration of Toronto neighbourhoods. Accordbg to Hitchcock, 'suburban' refers to "those areas developed after World War Two which were consciously onented to automobile use" (1981, p. 3). In contraa to urban neighbourhoods, suburban areas are characterised by shopping plans rather thao arip retail development and a Street pattern which is not necessarily part of a regular grid. While retail facilities may be accessible by foot, the average walking distance fkom most residences to moa stores is substantially greater in suburban areas than it is in city neighbourhoods. In the wake of the Second World War, the population of Toronto nveiied tom 1.2 million in 195 1, to 2.6 million in 197 1, and nearly 3.9 million in 199 1 (Statiaics Canada 1992). Toronto was compeiled to expand in order to accommodate the growing numbers of new residents. In the eariy 1940s, Bathurst Street was scarcely developed above Egluigton Avenue. Over the course of the decades which foiiowed, Bathurst Street and the surrounding neighbourhoods were developed accordiig to the suburban model. Bathurst Street was hed with hi& rise apartment buildings and retail plazas with parking facüities, while the curvilinear side areets were predominated by single family detached homes. The development of Bathurst Street in the neigbbourhood of Steeles Avenue is currently in progress. hterestingly, the suburban characteristics of the northemmost neighbourhoods of Bathurst Street are even more pronounced. The shopping plazas and parking lots are larger. So too are the lot sizes and houses. Ta11 fences separate residential areas fiom the busy, automobile-filled streets. Public transportation is poorly developed. 6. THE OLD SEWLSH ENCLAVE 6.1. ELEMENTSOF THE COMMUNITYLAMISCAPE It is possible to ident* ten elements of the old enclave landscape which provide valuable information about the Jewish community of the early part of the century. These elements relate specificaUy to the three defining characteristics of community identified by Colin Beil. As Figure 6.1 iiiustrates, the fist three elements teU about the area of the community, the next three teil about the cornmon ties of the community, and the final four tell about the social interaction of the community. FIGURE 6.1: ELEMENTSOF THE OLD ENCLAVE LANDSCAPE. The landscape elements are as follows: 1. Concentrarion of Jewish Population. While the majority of immigrant groups to Toronto settled in discrete areas, the settlement pattern of the East European Jews was the mon concentrated (Speisman 1979). The downtown Jewish enclave has been described as "a miniature Jewish civilisation in the heart of Anglo-saxon Toronto" (Speisman 1979, p. 87). in 1915 there were approximately 6500 Jewish individuals living in the Ward an area of less than one square kilometre. At the same tirne. there were 10,000 Jewish individuals living in the neighbourhood of Spadina Avenue. an area of only one and a haff square kilometres bordered by College Street, Queen Street, University Avenue, and Bathurst Street. This amounts to roughly 6600 Jewish individuals living per square kilometre. Figure 6.2 illustrates the proportion of the total population of the downtown enclave that was Jewish in 19 15. lt indicates that the Jewish population represented more thao one half of the total population of the Ward. As weil, it demonstrates that more than one third of the residents of the Spadina Avenue neighbourhood were Jewish. The Jewish immigrants md their families iived in close proximity to one another for several reasons. Fira, the new immigrants were desperately poor and determined to save what Little money they could for their East European relatives (Speisman 1979). Accordingly, they were attracted to the low coa accommodations of the Ward. Second. the Ward was the geographic centre of the Jewish trading economy. It was the meeting place of Jewish wholesalers, tetailers, and peddlers (Hiebert 1993). A unique set of circumstances conspired to bring about the development of the Jewish trading economy. In the early years of Jewish immigration to Toronto, Jewish individuals were seldom hûed by non-Jewish business owners who regarded the newcomers as a strange and suspicious people. The Jewish immigrants were also diarustfùl of non-Jewish employers as a consequence of theù mistreatment in Eastern Europe. Moreover, the vaa majority of Jewish immigrants had been subjected to occupational restrictions in their native countries. They had not had the opportunity to develop traditional skills which were useful in North America (Speisman 1985). For al1 of these reasons, many Jewish immigrants tunied to self-employment. They worked as peddlers (see Figure 6.3), rag pickers. dealers of used fumiture and other salvaged goods. Eventually, some of the more prosperous peddlers became retailers and wholesalers. The Jewish trading economy was a powerfùl draw to new immigrants, and so too was the Ward. Third, the Ward was located close to the gament factories wbere large numbers of Jews were employed. Living in the Ward, factory employees could wak to and £tom work As well, they could be sure to hdtemporary work peddling or trading in the event of seasonal layoffs andor strikes. Fourth, the e?cperirnce of prejudicr and persecution in the Old World. coupled with the hostiiity of the Anglo-Saxon majonty toward the new immigrants. compelled the Eaa European Jewish immigrants to ban together. As they lived and worked in a common area there developed a landscape that was reminiscent of the Old World shtetl. The familiar sights, sounds, and smells of the Ward and the availability of cultural amenities afforded the new immigrants a sense of security, belonging, and historical continuity. By 1912 the area had become a Wcuaiiy ~e~containedcommunity with respect to cultural, religious and educational seMces and facilities. As MgAbeUa writes, Here in the corner stores, the synagogue, the market, the fiont yard, kin and fiiends fiom home towns in the old country gathered to pass on advice, to gossip or to make collective decisions on wbom to send for f?om their village. As weli, they debated politics of both their old and new homes, taiked about workiug conditions and organised unions. For the immigrant, the ghetto became his anchor in the New World ( 1990, p. 12 1). The Jewish bookstores were meeting halls and gathering places where newcomers, students, union organisers and others couid browse through newspapers and books, drink soda water, meet fiends and argue ( 1990,;. 122). FIGURE 6.2: JEWS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION, 19 15. Source: City of Toronto Tax Assessrnent Rolls, 19 15. Lake Ontario FIGURE 6.3: PEDLAR'SLICENSE, 19 18. Source: City of Toronto Archives. 2. Proximi~ofSynagoguestoJavishHomes. TheTorahcontainsthree specific rules regarding the observance of Shabbat. It declares that one is forbidden to work. to kindle fie, and to move fkom one's habitation on the day of the Jewish Sabbath. ln early biblical times, these laws were taken iiterally. huing the Rabbinic penod (c. 200 CE (Common Era)) the Laws of Shabbat were reinterpreted. The law against 'moving fiom one's habitation', for example, was taken to mean that one could not travel beyoud the ümits of one's own tom on the Sabbath day. With the arriva1 of the modem era. the laws of Shobbat observance were again reinterpreted. Most relevant to this discussion, the Rabbis of the modem age judged that electricity is fie and so forbade travel by street car on Shabbat, even wiihin the Limits of one's own city or tom. in short. the prohibition of lengthy travel and the prohibition of any streetcar or automobile travel on the Sabbath made residence within walking distance of the synagogue an imperative. Ln 1915 there were no less than 17 synagogues located in the area of Jewish settlement. As Figure 6.4 illuarates, of the more than 25,000 Jewish individuals living in the downtown enclave in 19 15, 19,200 individuals lived within 0.5 kilometres of a synagogue, 5000 lived within 1.O kilometres of a synagogue, and 930 Lived within 1.5 kilometres of a synagogue. Assuming that it takes the average pedearian ten minutes to wak one kilometre, it follows that the vaa majority of Jewish individuals living in the downtown enclave were able to walk to synagogue in fifteen minutes or less. On Friday evenings and Saturday momings the streets of the downtown enclave were hed with Jewish families and individuals wabg to and fi-om Sabbath seMces at a local synagogue. FIGURE 6.4: PROXIMITYOF SYNAGOGWS TO JEWISH HOMES, 19 15. Source: Hiebert 1993. 100 Jewish individuals living within .5 Imi of a synagogue O 100 Iewish individuals living within 1 bn of a synagogue 0 100 Jewish individiials Fving within 1.5 km of a synagogue 3. Proximity of Jewish Homes to Places of Jewish Employment. Tbe religious members of the Jewish community were compelled to observe the Jewish dietary laws and to observe the Sabbath. It was thus in the interest of the religious Jew to be able to return home for lunch each day, to retum home before sundown on Friday evenings, and to refrain bom work on Saturdays (Speisman 1998). As already noted, a considerable number of Jewish immigrants were self- employed as peddlers and traders. There were also Jewish shopkeepers, laundry proprietors, shoernakers, and tailors who prepared piecework for nearby clotliing factories. SeKemployment in the neighbourhood of the Ward was compatible with a Jewish way of life. It enabled kosher observance and observance of Shabbar. Moreover. it afforded the Jewish immigrant the time and the opponunity to pray and to audy. As Stephen Speisman relates. 'Teddling [and other forms of home induary] enabled the Eastern European immigrant to retain his dignity which depended, at least pnor to 1900, on his role within the Jewish community, on piety and leaming rather than on wealth or occupational aatus" ( 1979, p. 72). In 19 10 moa Jews who were not directly involved in trade sought emp loyment in the garment factories which were located due south of the Ward (Hiebert 1993). They worked as sewers, cutters, milliners, tailors, and hat makers. There were also a bandfùl of Jewish business owners - entrepreneurs who had gained valuable howledge and insight about the induary fiom their own experience as factory workers and had secured the necessary means to strike out on their own. Many of the Jewish immigrants who amved in Toronto in the 1920s and 1930s sought employment with the Jewish-owned fis. While selEernployment or employment by other Jews made it easier to Live as a Jew, ultimately, one's decision to Live close to one's place of work was the means to ensure continued observance of a Jewish way of Life in Nonh America. Botb the immigrant who worked as a peddler or trader in the Ward and the immigrant who worked in one of the nearby gannent factories couid amve home before sundown on Friday evenings and retum home for lunch each day without having to incur the cost of areet car fare. Moreover, many reiigious Jews were able refrain from factory work on Saturday momings without threat of dismissal (Speisman 1985). Figure 6.5 illustrates the pro?cimity of most Jewish homes to the workplaces most commonly associated with the Jewish immigrants. There is clearly a considerable amount of overlap between place of residence and place of work. Most of the Jewish merchants worked on Teraulay Street (now caiied Bay Street) and Agnes Street (now calied ûundas Street), in the heart of the Ward. Most of the garment factories, including the Lowndes Co. and Johnson Bros., were located in the area jus south of the Ward on Front Street, Wellington Street, Church Street. and Bay Street. The rnanufacturing complex of the T. Eaton Company, the largest single employer of Jews fiom the Ward, was loçatrd brtween Teraulay Street. Aiben Street, Louisa Street, and James Street (Speisman 1985). FIGURE 6.5: PROXI~~YOF JEWSH HOMES TO PLACES OF JEWSH EMPLOYMENT, C. I 9 I 5. Sources: Hiebert 1993, Speisman 1985, 1998. 3. Yiddsh Laqpage/Culture. The Jews of Eastern Europe spoke Yiddish, a Jewish dialect of medieval German. They read Yiddish literature and Yiddish newspapers, saw Yiddish plays, and Listened to Yiddish music. Yidnishkeit or "Jewishness" was an inescapable part of East European Me. When the East European Jews immigrated to North Amenca they brought their ricb cultural tradition with them While the immigrants leamed some Engiish Born their cliildren and in the course of peddling or doing business, the language of conversation among fin generation immigrants was Yiddish (Speisman 1998). To be sure, an article written for a local newspaper in 1915 relates that the residents of the Ward were "... people with remarkable histories who in quaint broken English can teLi tales by the hour of their experiences in Russia or Poland.. . " (Neufeld 19 15). Ln the early 1900s, Yiddish newspapers fkom Montreal and New York were widely dinributed throughout the Jewish enclave- and in 19 12 the Jewish community of Toronto established its own Yiddish paper. Secularist Jewish schools taught Yiddish iiterature and assigned Yiddish essays. A Yiddish Theatre, The Lyric, was established in a former church at the corner of Agnes Street and Terauley Street in the heart of the Ward. It had its own resident Company, hoaed Yiddish troops Born the United States, and was a stage for amateur local performers. In the early 1900s and 1910s, Yiddish poets, authors, and inteilectuals read their work and gave lectures in the bookstores and restaurants of the Ward and Spadina Avenue (Speisman 1998). Figures 6.6 - 6.10 illustrate the presence of Yiddish in the streets of the Ward. Fr~u~~6.6:THELYRIcTHEATRE. FIGURE6.7: NoR~ASTCORNEROFEL~ETHSTREETAND&BERTSTREET,~~~~. Source: The City of Toronto Archives. FIGL'RE6 3: REGISTRY OFFICEDi THE WARD. Source: The City of Toronto Archives. FIGURE6.9: .AGNES STREETCHICKEN WAREHOUSE, 19 10. Source: The City of Toronto kchives. FIGURE 6.i C: .~VERTISEMENTFOR ENGLISH LESSONS. Source: The City of Toronto Archives. At The Central Ne.ighborhood House 84 GERQARD STREET WEST .FI-IERE ARE CLA4iSEz IEc' ENGLISH FOR XIEN on Tüesday and Wednesday Evening Reading Room on fiiday Night Fne discussion merting on Sunday afternoon CALL AND SEE. 5. Kosher Stores,'Services. As Figures 6.11 - 6.14 illustrate. the Jewish enclave included specialised shops and restaurants which catered to the particular dietary requirements of the Jewish population. The commercial establishments here depicted refiect the determination of the Jewish immigrant to abide by the laws of Kashrzcth. The laws of Kashnirh are rabbinic interpretations of the biblical dietary laws found in the Torah. Mon notable perhaps, is the law which dictates that milk products and meat products may not be cooked together' served together, or eaten together. This is a rabbinic interpretation of a tine that is repeated three times in the Torah which States that "a kid may not be boiled in its mother's mi&" (Wylen 1989, p. 78). The Torah also instnicts that only those animals which have a cloven hoof and chew the cud are fit for human consumption. The rabbinic extension of this law requires that animal slaughtering be performed by a shoket, an individual who is highly trained and religiously pious. When something is deemed to be correct or ritually acceptable according to the laws of Kashnrrh it is called kosher (Wylen 1989, p. 77). in biblical times, only the priesthood observed the laws of Karhntth. They were 'ihe laws of priealy purity" (Wylen 1989: p. 78). Lt has been suggested that with the destruction of the Temple and the dispersal of the Jewish people, the laws of Kashnrth were extended to the larger population as a means of keeping the Jewish people distinct and united. The mass Onmigration of East European Jews to North America was but anothtr chapter in the long hiaory of Jewish migration. That the Jewish immigrants to Toronto upheld the dietary laws reflects their determination to preserve their unique cultural identity. The dietary laws were well reflected in the landscape of the immigrant community. There were kosher food stores, kosher butcher shops (see Figures 6.11 - 6.13), and restaurants which served only kosher milk or meat products (see Figure 6.14). Moreover. a 19 15 newspaper article about the Ward relates that "ln the neighbourhood of fean days many Jewish ladies may be seen gathered around chicken coops and disputing in violent tones as to the ownership of the chicken inside. For no Jewish fean is complete without a chicken, and a chicken mua be bought alive and killed by the "Rabbi" in orthodox fashion" (Neufeld 19 15). Interestingly, the article also refers to the Jew's "rigid adherence to the Law of Moses by which it is necessary to separate meat f?om mik in the preparation and serving of food to nich an extent that separate dishes must be kept for "fleischug" and "milichug" rneals". It mua be noted that there were gradations of kosher observance amongst the early Jewish community. There were reügious Jews who kept strictly kosher. There were secular Jews who rejected the laws of Kashruth and secular Jews who kept kosher simply because they were accustomed to the kosher ways of preparing and eating food. There were parents who kept kosher and children who did not. This variation aside, it has been suggested that the majority of East European immigrants were so immersed in Jewish culture fiom their childhood that they were not likely to eat unkosher food (Speisman 1998). FIGCRE @. 1 1 SHOPOF A SHOET [.i THE W.W FIGLX O.12 SHOWIN THE WARD. FIGLRE 6.1j KOSHER ME.AT ht4RliET IN THE WrUU3. Source The City of Toronto Archives. FIGURE6.13: NEW YORK Dm~U~TAURANT. Source: The City of Toronto Archives. 6. ûzrtwrd AppeurameiDress. According to Jewish tradition, Jewish men mua Wear tallit during synagogue worship and kzpahs or yannulkes in al1 worship. The tallit is a prayer shawl that is wom over the shoulders. Fringes are tied to each comer of the tallit as a reminder of God's commandments. The hpoh is a head covering that is worn as a mark of respect to God in accordance with Middle Eastern custom Many believe that the head covering is symbolic of the divide between God and humanity. Jewish tradition also dictates that men Wear beards. This is in keeping with the biblical injunction -'Thou shalt not rnar the comer of thy beard", a command to forsake the idolatnst custom of cutting the beard and sidelocks (quoted in Kolatch 1995, p. 122). Most of the East European Jewish immigrants practised an Orthodox form of Judaism which requires that its foliowers cover their heads and Wear beards. As Figures 6.15 - 6.20 illustrate, the majority of middle aged and older immigrants wore the traditional Jewish garb. To the extent that this mode of dress set the Jews apart f?om their non-Jewish neighbours, the East European Jewish immigrants have been described as "one of Toronto's first visible minorities" (Hiebert 1993, p. 249). To be sure. a newspaper article daenabout the Ward in 19 15 mentions 'Glimpses caught of the men in the syndgogue, chanting prayers in their black and white striped prayer shawls'? (Neufeld 19 15 ). Many young Jews. lacking the experience and confidence of older generations, abandoned the distinctly Jewish style of dress and haircut. They covered their heads with fashionable caps innead of kipahs and wore only short beards (Speisman 1998). FIGURE6.15: JEWSH MAN DRESSED IN THE TRADïïïONAL GARE. FIGURE6.16: JEWISH MEN WrrW T,WWALKING TO SERVICES IN THE WARD, C. 19 1 1 Source: The Ontario Jewish Archives. FIGURE 6.17: JEWISH MAN W[TH A BABY CARRIAGE. FIGURE 6.18: &WSH MEN IN THE WARD. Source: The City of Toronto Archives. FIGURE 6.19: JEWISH PEDDLER IN THE WM, 19 10. Source: The City of Toronto Archives. FIGL'RE~.~~,JE\\'ISHhERCKiYT[NTHE\V.W. Source: The Ontario Jewish .Archives. 7. nte Synagogue. Toronto's 6rst synagogue was established by the old commuuity of West European immigrants in 1849. The amval of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the bal years of the 19& century effected major changes to the inaitutional landscape of Jewish Toronto. in 1901 there were three synagogues in the Ward. By 19 15 this number had increased to ten, and there were seven more synagogues in the area just West of the Ward. Fifteen years later there were no less than 32 synagogues located in an area that siretched from Yonge Street to Ossington Street, and fiom Queen Street to Harbord Street. The synagogues of the Ward and neighbouring areas varied considerably in architectural terms (see Figures 6.2 1 - 6.23). There were three major types of synagogue: the synagogue that was established in a borne or converted store, the synagogue that was established in a former church, and the synagogue that was built specifically as a Jewish 'house of assembly'. As most Jewish immigrants could not afford to nippon large and lavish synagogues, the majority of hem were small, one-room institutions. Some were scarcely recognisable as synagogues. Others were proudly IabeUed with Hebrew witing and/or the Star of David. The congregational make-up of the early synagogues is particularly telling about the Jewish community of the early 20" century. Most coogregations were established by !a~ldma~~~hafreri,associations of individuals fTom the same part of Eastern Europe. There were Poiish synagogues, Russian Synagogues, and Romanian synagogues. The Beth Tzedec Congregation, currently one of the largest congregations in Canada, was in fact eaablished as The Lithuanian Shul in 1907. Further, as the number of Jewish immigrants to Toronto increased, immigrants fiom very specific regions or towns in Eastern Europe formed their own congregations. While the synagogue served as a house of worship, it also served as a centre of Jewish educational, charitable, and social Me. It thus afforded the Jewish immigrant the oppormnity to pray, to study, and to socialise with his or her countrpen and women. As such, it was a precious source of security, camaraderie, and historical continuity. It should be noted that there are no archival photographs of synagogues in the Ward. The synagogues Uustrated in this section were constructed welI after 19 15 in the neighbourhood of Spadina Avenue. The images are included to provide some sense of early synagogue architecture in Toronto. FIGURE6.2 1: SYNAGOGUE[N THE OLD JEWISH ENCLAVE, BLmT C. 1 930 - 1 945. Source: Anne Rennert. FIGLRES 6.22.6.23: SYNAGOGUES IN THE OLD JDWSH ENCLAVE, BUILT C l%O - 1945 Source .heRemert. 8. 7he Marhpface. in the sh~etkof Eastern Europe, the marketplace was a centre of activity. On market days, the tom squares came aiive with farmers and liveaock, vendors of clothing and other goods, and men and women eager to exchange a wide variety of provisions and wares. By 1915 the beginnings of an outdoor market were evident in the area of Kensington Avenue (Speisrnan 1998). A great variety of goods were sold fiom push- carts. on sidewalks, and Eom the &ont rooms of houses (see Figure 6.24). Eveotually, the houses on Kensington Avenue, Augusta Avenue, Baldwin Street and Nassau Street were converted into shops. By the Meof the Second World War, there were more than 1000 Jewish-owned shops and restaurants within a one-mile radius of the market, with nearly 15 000 Jews living nearby (Hiebert 1993). Stephen Speisman observes that the area of Kensington Market had a "A shtetl atmosphere, perhaps doser to the European mode1 than New York's Lower East Side or London's Whitechapel" ( 1979. p. 93). Kensington Market brought Jewish entrepreneurs and shopkeepers, Jewish workers and peddlers together in a iively exchange of goods and ideas. While labour and Zionia politics. inequalities in wealth and social natus, and other sucb divisive forces gave considerable variation to the experience of Jewish life in Toronto, the marketplace was a focal point and a common bond for al1 members of the community. FIGURE 6.24: JEWISH MERCHANT. Source: The City of Toronto Archives. 9. Jeivish Echrcatiorz. In the 1900s and 19 los, religious Jewish education was given door-to-door by men who 'peddled' their religious knowledge, by private teachers who set up chedarim or one-room schools in their homes, by the congregational schools of synagogues, and by community schools (Speisman 1985). In 19 15 there were two Jewish community schools in the Ward: The Toronto Hebrew Religion School. and The Jewish National Radical School. Children attended the congregational and community schools on Sunday mornings and for several hours foiiowing the regular school day. 10. Jewish Charip/Welfarism. The original p hilanthrop ic societies of Jewish Toronto were organised through the institution of the synagogue. The societies provided grocenes, clothing, and fuel to the Iess fortunate members of the Jewish community. As weil, they provided a translation service and prepared kosher meals for Jewish patients at the Toronto General Hospital. in 1909 a Jewish day nursery was estabiished in the Ward to enable mothers to work outside of the home. A fiee dispensary (the precursor of Mount Sinai Hospital) was also established in 1909 to provide medical assistance to needy members of the community. Finally, mutual benefit societies üke the Toronto Hebrew Benevolent Society, the Ride of Israel Sick Benefit Society, and societies composed of individuals fiom the same parts of Eastern Europe (see Figure 6.25) provided assistance to new immigrants and helped to bring other Jews fiom Eastern Europe to Toronto. FIGURE6.25: ROUMAIWW BENEVOLENTSOCIETY, C. 1917. Source: The City of Toronto Archves. 7. THE NEW JXWISH ENCLAVE 7.1 ELEMENTSOF THE Conmuw~LANDSCAPE There are ten elements of the new enclave landscape which provide valuable information about the contemporary Jewish comrnunity. As in the previous section, these elernents relate specifically to the three deking characteristics of comrnunity identified by Colin Bell. Figure 7.1 illustrates that the fin two elements tell about the area of the community, the next four teil about the cornmon ties of the comrnunity, and the final four tell about the social interactzon of the community. FIGURE7.1: EL~SOF THE NEW ENCLAVE LANDSCAPE. The landscape elements are as foiiows: 1. Concentratiarz of Jewish Population In 199 1 there were approximately 90,000 Jewish individuals (slightly more then one half of the total Jewish population of Toronto) living in the neighbourhood of Bathurst Street, an area of roughly 64 square kilometres (Statist ics Canada 1992). This amounts to roughly 1400 Jewish individuals living per square kilometre. As Figure 7.2 illustrates, the Jewish population of Toronto accounts for more than 25% of the total population in 32 cf the 58 census tracts in the area bordered by Highway 7, St. Clair Avenue. Yonge Street. and Dufferin Street. These 32 census tracts account for more than 50% of the defined area. It foiiows that over one half of the area is more than one quarter Jewish. The signrficance of this proportion becomes clear when it is juxtaposed against the fact that the Jewish population of Toronto accounts for only 1.2% of the city's population (Torczyner et al. 1995). Apparently, the bonds of Jewish culture are remarkably strong. The Batemity and the sense of security and tradition which derive fiom Living together cannot be underest irnated. FIGURE7.2: JEWS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION, 199 1. Source: Torczyner et al. 1995. 2. Proxiimi~of syrlagogzles to .?mish Hornes. The location of synagogues in contemporary Toronto mimors the distribution of Jewish population in the city. As Figure 7.3 illustrates, there are no less than 126 synagogues and other Jewish congregations in Toronto. AU but several congregations are located in the neighbourhood of Bathurst Street between Highway 7: St. Clair Avenue, Yonge Street, and Dufferin Street. Unlike the synagogues of the early pan of the century which represented local cornrnunities of East European immigrants, the modem congregations are organised around reiigious doctrines. There are three dominant rnovernents of modern Judaism: Orthodox, Cooservative, and Reform. Each derives fiom the traditional Judaism of pre- enlightenment Europe, each originated in Germany io the 19' century as pan of the civil emancipation of the Jewish people, and each was a response to the processes of modernisation. As Stephen M. Wylen explains. 'Reform Judaism is based on philosophy, the religion of reason. Conservative Judaism is based OB history, the historical development of a people which progressively reveals the divine spirit. Orthodox Judaism is based on law. the Iaw of the etemal and uochanging Torah which God gave at Mount Sinai" ( 1989, p. 295). While Orthodox Jews are required to waik to synagogue on Shabbai, Conservative and Reform Jews, and less religious members of Orthodox congregations may travel to synagogue by car or public transponation. Hence, non-Orthodox Jews need not iive within wahg distance of a synagogue. if they do iive close to a synagogue, they may choose to travel to another ifit better represents their reiigious perspectives. To be sure, many modem synagogues include parking facilities, and the streets surrounding many synagogues are ofien Lined with parked cars (see Figures 7.4 and 7.5). Although the rnajority of Jews in Toronto do not practice an Orthodox form of Judaism, there is an unminakably high correlation between the location of Jewish homes and the location of synagogues. The proximity of synagogues to Jewish homes speaks of the contemporary Jewish community's commitment to tradition. It speaks of the synagogue's role as a kind of beacon for Jewish cornmunity - as assurance that other Jewish families Live nearby, as a source of Jewish self-confidence and pride, and as a commitment to make of a neighbourhooà, a home. FIGURE 7.3: PROXIMITY OF SYNAGOGüES TO JEWISH HOMIES, 1998. Sources: Statistics Canada 1992, Jewish Idormation Service 1997. 100 Jewish individuais living within .5 km of a synagogue 100 Jcwish individuais Livingwithiu1km of a synagogue 100 Je& individuais living within 1.5 km of a synagogue 100 Jtwisti individuais livingwithin2km of a synagogue FIGUES 7.4. 7.5: P.WGLOTS AT MODERN SYNXGUGUES, 199s Source: Neil Stemthal. 3. Kusher/Speciality Stores and Services. The Jewish community 's continued observance of the Laws of Kashnith is clearly reflected in the contemporary Jewish landscape. Bathurst Street and several neighbouring streets are doned with stores seiiing a wide variety of kosher products, kosher butchers, delicatesseas, and restaurants which serve only kosher milk or meat products. As well, there are stores selling the products and services which are required to keep a proper Jewish home and to live a proper Jewish Life. As Figures 7.6 - 7.17 illustrate, the signage outside each of these establishments declares, in bold tenns, theù Jewish affiliation. Most include one or more of the word 'kosher'? the kosher symbol 'COR', Hebrew wTiting, Hebrew or Yiddish words, and the Star of David. lt should be noted that moa Jews who do not keep kosher also express their Jewish identity by eating 'Jewish' foods like bagels, los, and potato btkes or pancakes which the Jewish immigrants brought over Born Eastern Europe. 1t follows that while ody a fiaction of the contemporary Jewish community keeps nrictly kosher, the Jewish stores are in fact representative of the larger Jewish community's dietary noms and tastes. FIGLXES7 6. 7.7: STORES SELLING KOSHER FOOD/J~VISH PRODUCTS, 19%. Source: Sei1 Stemthal. FIGURES 7.8. 7.9: STORESSELLING KOSHER FOODIJW'ISH PRODLICTS. 19%. Source: Sei1 Stemthal. FIGURES7.10.7.1 1. STORESSELLiNG KOSHER FOOD/JEI\'lSH PRODUCTS. 19% Source: Seil Stemthal . . - FIGURES7.12, 7.13 : STORESSELLiNG KOSHER FOOD/JEWSH PRODUCTS, 1 998. Source: Neil Stemthal. FIGURES 7.11,7.15: STORESSELLING KOSHER F0ODi~EtVISHPRODUCTS, 1998. Source: Neil Stemthal. FIGLRES 7.16.7 17: STORES SELLNG KOSHER FOODiJEWSH PRODL'CTS, 1998. Source: Neil Stemthal. 4. Outwurd Appearance/Dress. The majority of Jews in Toronto dress in the same way as their non-lewish neighbours. It is simply impossible to diainguish mon Jewish people apart fiom other ethnic populations on the basis of physical appearance. A small segment of the Jewish population, the Lntra-Orthodox or Hasidic community, does however dress in a distinctive manner. While the Hasidim represent only a smail proportion of the Toronto Jewish community, the conspicuousness of this group is without question, an integral pan of the contemporary Jewish landscape. Hasidism is a movement of spiritual revival which emerged during the later half of the 18" century as a reaction to political and economic insecurity in Poland. and to the formalisation of Judaism (Sachar 1990). The Hasidim value prayer above nudy, and believe that the unleamed man can relate to God as surely as any other. To the Hasidic lew Living in Eastern Europe, North Arnerica was regarded as a land which tempted Jews to assimilate. The Hasidim did not rherefore, immigrate to North Amenca until life in the shtetls and cities of Eastern Europe had become truly intolerable. Some came in the years and months leading up to the Second World War. More came as survivors of the Holocaust. In cities Like New York, Montreal, and Toronto, the Hasidim established their own synagogues, schools oryeshiw. and other institutions in order that they could live a &U religious life within the bounds of thei own community. Hasidic men continue to Wear the long black coat, broad hat, and white shirt without tie that was customary in Eastem Europe. Boys Wear kipahs and grow their hair to fashion pqm or side curls. The Hasidic women continue to dress according to traditional standards of modesty. Mamed women cover their hair with wigs or kerchiefs and ali women and girls cover their necks, elbows, and legs. While the Ultra-Orthodox represent only 10% of the contemporary Jeuish population (Speisman 1998), their presence in Toronto is surely visible. In the course of driving along Bathurst Street, it is hardly uncommon to see men with long beards, black hats, coatç, and tallit wahgto synagogue (see Figures 7.18 - 7.20) or boys with kzpah and payas wakg to a yeshivo. It is not uncommon ta see groups of girls clad in long skirts or dresses walking to school. FIGURE 7.18: JEWISH MEN WALIÿNG TO SYNAGOGUE ON sH4B&4T, 1998. Source: Nei1 Stemthal. FIGURE7.19, 7.20: JEWISH hmWMWG TO S\~Y.AGOGL'EON SH.~.BB.-LT,i 99s Source: Neil Stemthal. 5. The State of israel. Signs carrying the siogan, 'our Land, our People, our Bond' are planted in the lawns of moa every Jewish institution in Toronto (see Figures 7.21 and 7.22). The signs promote the sale of State of Israel Bonds. They encourage Jewish Torootonians to provide assistance to a great vanety of development projects in the State of Israel. Such projects include the settlement, absorption, and education of hundreds of thousands of new immigrants, the construction of roads and highways, and research in the fields of science, technology and engineering. The presence of these signs in the landscape is indicative of the fact that taking pnde in the State of lsrael is a primary means of asserting Jewish identity in North America. By purchasing Israel Bonds or making an annual gifi to the United Jewish Appeal for social services in Iaael, mernbers of the Toronto Jewish community assert their cornmitment to the Jewish state and the Jewish people. FlGCRE 7.21. 7 22 SIGKJGE FOR STATE OF [SRCL BONDS AND bJ.4 FEDERJTIOS, 109s Source. .heRemen 6. The Holocausr. in Earl Bales Park, an extensive green space on the east side of Bathurst Street just North of Highway 401, a tail bronze pillar rises above a garden of roses. This is Toronto's HoIocaust Memorial (see Figures 7.23 and 7.24). Dedicated on June 2, 1991 by the Canadian Society for Yad Vashem the Holocaua museum in Jerusalem, the memonal is a tribute to the six million kws kiiied during the Second World War. Opposite the Holocaust Memonal is the Raoul Waileaberg Mernorial (see Figure 7.25). It remembers the Swedish hero who engineered the survival of thousands of European Jews during the war. The Holocaust Memorial and the Raoul Wallenberg Memorial stand as declarations that the Jewish community of Toronto, like Jewish cornmunities around the world. wiil not forget that millions were killed for the simple fact of being Jewish. They stand as affirmations that the Jewish people endured the onslaught of Nazism and succeeded in rebuilding a strong and confident Jewish community. For bener or for worse, the Holocaust lefi an indelible mark on the Jewish population. It has become an integral pan of Jewish ideutity. FIGLRE 7 23. 7.24 THEHOLOC.ACST ~EMORLU, 1 W. Source: .heRennert. FIGL-RE7 25: THE R~omWALLWERG R~EMORLAL. 1 QQS Source Nei 1 Stemthal. 7. De Syriagogire. in Settings of Silver, Stephen M. Wylen ( 1989) relates that as the Jewish people integrated with the majonty population through the middle decades of the 20~century, synagogue membership became a primary means of expressing Iewish ideotity in North Arnenca. in the pre-war years, only one fourth of al1 North Amencan Jews belonged to synagogues. This ratio increased to one half in the 1950s (Wylen 1989). As a consequence of the boom in synagogue membership and the growth of Toronto's Jewish population. the memberships of maoy of the city's old synagogues outgrew the old synagogue structures. in the 1950s and 1960s, many of the estabiished congregations constructed new buildings in the new areas of Jewish senlement. The abandoned nrucnires were either converted into churches or community centres. or tom dom. Various new congregations were ais0 estabiished during this period. Figures 7.26 - 7.28 demonstrate that the newer synagogues, which were built afier 1950 in the neighbourhoods of Bathurst Street. tend to be relativeiy large and grandiose. The exterior decoration of the modem synagogue generally includes Hebrew writing, the Star of David andor the menorah, a sacred candlestick of seven branches. While the modem synagogue is primarily a house of worship, moa members only attend sewices on the High Holidays and use the synagogue for the religious education of their chiidren leading to Bar or Bat Mirs-ah. That the synagogue is only weil attended on several days each year does not minMise the importance of the institution as a part of the Jewish landscape. Indeed. the High Holidays and the event of the Bar or Bat Mit-yah are central to the experience of Jewish community in the city. In the course of driving along Bathurst Street, one camot help but look upon one of the many mobile billboards used by local congregations to advercise synagogue senices and events. Thesr sips reinforce the prominence of the synagogue as part of the Jewish landscape (see Figure 7.29). FIGW7.26: MODERNSYNAGOGUE, BUILT C. 1955. Source: .Anne Remert. FIGURE7.27,7.?8: bIODWSYNAGOGUES,BUILTC.1955-1990. Source: Neil Stemthal. FIGURE7.29: BILLBOARDSALONG BATHURSTS'IREET, 1998. Source: Neil Stemthai. 8. The Jewish Day School. There are more than 25 Jewish day schools in Toronto offering a wide range of religious and secular Jewish education to midents at pre-schooi, elementary and high school levels. MgAbella ( 1990) relates that Jewish day school enrolments per capita in Toronto are the highea outside of Israel. No doubt the proueration of Jewish day schools since the establishment of the academic institution in the 1910s is reflective of a proud and confident Jewish community that is committed to preserving Jewish religion and culture. WhiIe the architecture of the Jewish day school may be much Like that of mon any public school in the city, the Hebrew writing and the Jewish names inscribed on the building facades of the Jewish schools set them apm fiom ali others (see Figures ?.;O and 7.3 1 ). FIGURES7.30, 7.3 1 : JEWSH DAYSCHOOLS, 1998. Source: Neil Stemthal. 9. The Jewish Comrnunity Centre. There are two Jewish Community Centres in Toronto. The Bloor JCC, located at the corner of Bloor Street and Spadina Avenue, serves the people wbo Live and work in dowotown Toronto. The Bathurst JCC, located on Bathurst Street north of Highway 401, serves the people who live and work in the northem parts of the city. Both offer a wide variety of activities for children. adults, and seniors. They offer day care and nursery education, and programs in athletics. fitness, an and music. The Jewish Community Centre is a modern day expression of Jewish identity. It is a reflection of the secular aspects of Jewish community in Toronto. Adjacent to the Bathurst JCC is the Jewish Public Library. hs collection iacludes books and other publications on a variety of Jewish themes. That the Jewish community has its own public library is indicative of the will of Jewish community leaders to promote an awareness and an understanding of things Jewish amongst members of the Jewish çommunity and the greater population of Toronto. While thrre is nothhg that is distinctly Jewish about the architectural structure of either of the community centres or the library, the exterior of each building includes subtle indications of its Jewish aEüiation. The Star of David features prominently in the signage outside of the Bloor JCC, a menorah is ked to the exterior of the Bathurst JCC, and Canadian and Israeii flags fly above the Jewish Public Library (see Figures 7.32 - 7.34). FIGL-TCES~.~~,~.~:IE%~SHCO~~ILINIT\I'CENTRES.~Q~S Source Neil Stemthal. FIGURE 7.34: JEWISH PUBLIC LIBRARY, 1998. Source: Anne Rennert . 1 0. Jewish Char@/ Werfurism. It is nearly impossible to drive along Bathurst Street without encomtering one of the blue and white signs promoting the United lewish Appeal Federation (see Figures 7.2 1, 7.22 and 7.35). The kequency of these signs in the landscape reflects the importance of the UJA to the Jewish people of Toronto. The United Jewish Appeal is the central fhd-raising campaign which responds to the needs of the local cornmunit): the needs of the people of Israel and the needs of other Jewish communities around the world. The fùnds raised by the UJA support in excess of 40 agencies, institutions, and social programs in Toronto. The fhds help to satisfy the needs for immigrant absorption, social programs, and urban renewal in the State of Israel. As vieil, they help to satisfy the needs for food and security in nich countries as Russia, and Ethiopia. Signage also demonstrates the involvement of B'nai Bnth Canada in the Jewish community of Toronto (see Figures 7.36 and 7.37). Guided by its mono, 'People Helping People', B'nai Brith conducts a variety of community volunteer service prograrns which help the less advantaged members of the local community. The organisation also endeavours to combat anti-Semitism, racism, and bigotry. The presence of the UJA Federation and B'nai Brith in the landscape reflects the centrality of charity and weifarism to the experience of Jewish community in Toronto. The Mount Sinai Hospital and the Baycrest Centre for GeRatnc Care also demonstrate the wiU and the determination of the city's Jewish community to take care of its own (see photographs 7.38 and 7.39). FIGURE7.35: SIGNAGEFOR UJA FEDER~TIoN, 1998. Source: Neif Stemthal. FIGLWS 7.36, 7.37: SIGNAGEFOR B'N.~BRiTH CANADA, 1998. Source: Neil Stemthat . FlGCRES 7.38, 7.39. BAYCRESTCENTRE FOR GERLL\TRICC.=, 1998. Source; Neil Stemthal. 8. CONTiNITZTY AND CHANGE LN TI333 LANDSCAPE OF JEWISEI TORONTO 8.1 LAsTING ELEMENTS As Figure 8.1 illustrates, many of the landscape elements of the oid Jewish enclave are also part of the new Jewish enclave. Several of these elements have been modified as a consequence of the natural evolution of a population over time. No doubt there have been substantial changes in the size of the Jewish population, the country of origin of Jewish immigrants, the age structure of the population, and other demographic indices. Moreover, several of these elements have been modified as the values and attitudes of the Jewish people have evolved in accordance with the changing realities of Me in urban North America. Nevertheless, there remains a considerable degree of similarity between the landscapes of the old and new Jewish enclaves with respect to the following landscape elements: The landscapes of both the old and new Jewish enclaves demonstrate/d a high concentration of Jewish population. In both cases, the Jewish population chose/chooses to live in a specific and limited area of Toronto. One may infer that the Jewish people bave consistently chosen to live in close proximity to one another because of tradition, cornnion attitudes, needs and intereas. Further, one may regard the concentration of Jewish population as a response to the experience of forced isolation, exclusion, and anti- Semitism in Eastern Europe and North America. Seen in this light, living together satisfies the need to belong to some group. It fosters a sense of shared destiny and a sense of security fkom the threat of anti-Sernitisrn It is worth noting however, that while there were roughly 6600 Jewish individuals per square kilometre Living in the old Jewish FIGURE 8.1: COMPARISON OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS. 1915 enclave, there are only 1400 Jewish individuals per square kilometre Living in the contemporary Jewish enclave. This difference may be explained by the fact that while the contemporary Jewish population is 6 times larger than the Jewish population of 19 15' the contemporary Jewish enclave is no less than 25 times larger than the Jewish enclave of the early penod (Torczyner et al. 1995). It foilows that the contemporary Jewish population is spread out over a larger area. No doubt this diffusion is, in part, a consequence of suburban sprawl - of larger lots &es, wider streets and the proliferation of automobile thoroughfares and parking lots. Ln the landscapes of both the old and the new Jewish enclaves. synagogues werelare located in proximity to Jewish homes. The religious East European Jewish immigrant needed to live close to a synagogue in order that he/she could walk to services on Shnbbot. While this may only be true of a Lirnited part of the contemporary Jewish population, the fact remains that it is only naturai for synagogues to be established where Jewish people live. Located in the heart of the Jewish enclave, the synagogue bea meets the needs of the community as a place of worship, community service and gathering. It serves as a co~ectionto Jewish history, as a stritement of Jewish tradition, and as a source of Jewish identity and pnde. Many of the residents of both the old and new Jewish enclaves hadhave a distinct physical appearance. As the vast majority of early East European Jewish immigrants were Orthodos, many wore head coverings and beards at ail times, and many wore tallit to synagogue. While the majority of modem Jews have abandoned the traditional mode of dress, the Ultra-Orthodox segment of the population bas retained the traditional dress of beards, hats, coats, and tallit. Irrespective of dBerences in detail and degree. the traditional Jewish mode of dress, evident in both the old and new Jewish enclaves, harkens back to another time and another place. It represents a connection between the Jewish communities of the Old and New Worlds. The landscapes of both the early and contemporary Jewish enclaves includdd a variety of kosher stores and services. in many cases, the sale of kosher products has moved Born stores on dense streets to stores in stnp malls and specially designated sections of supennarkets. This dserence notwithstanding, the decision to abide by the laws of Kashruth wadis, for both the early East Eu.-cyan J~wishimmigrant and the contemporary Canadian Jew, a means of observing religious principles and asserting Jewish distinctiveness and unity. 1t is a relatively private, quiet. and inconspicuous statement of Jewish identity and tradition. From the later part of the 19~century to the present day, the synagogue has aood as a major landmark of Jewish community in Toronto. It is possible however. to ideiitify two major differences between the early and modem synagogues. Both of these are reflective of dserences between the immigrant and contemporay Jewish populations. Fira, the synagogues of the early penod tended to be small and modes, while the majonty of modem synagogues tend to be relatively large and grandiose. It has been observed that the conaruction of the modem synagogue seemed to "hounce to the world that Jews were no longer self-conscious about their identity, but were proud to take their place in the social landscape of Amencan [sic] religion and cultural identity" (Wylen 1989, p. 344). To the extent that the modern synagogue may be perceived as a reflection of modem Jewish confidence, pride, and success, the old synagogue may be seen as a reflection of a Jewish community which lacked both se~co~denceand the hancial means to support large institutions. Second, while the synagogues of the old Jewish enclave were founded and attended by individuals fiom the same East European countries. cities, and towns, the synagogues of the new Jewish enclave are organised around religious doctrines. Jews of Russian, Polish, Romanian, Lithuanian, and other ongins belong to the sarne Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform congregations. To the extent that national association may be considered as a definhg characteristic of Jewish iife in the early pan of the century, religious perspective may be considered as a defining characteristic of contemporary Jewish iife. The centrality of charity and welfarism to the Jewish community has always been a part of the landscape of Jewish Toronto. In the early part of the 20' century charitable activities were camed out by the institution of the synagogue and the murual benefit society. Chanty is now administered and conducted by in excess of 30 independent organisations and institutions with the support of the United Jewish Appeal and other fund-raising initiatives. As weii, the weifare of the Jewisb couimunity is guarded by such advocacy groups as B'nai Bnth. Today's network of Jewish charities and welfare organisations is thus decidedly better developed than that of the early period. It includes a greater number of organisations which represent a wider vanety of community intereas, and larger organisations which are better able to address the needs of an ever- growing, ever-demandhg Jewish population. These diîferences notwithaanding, the ubiquity of Jewish charitable institutions is a defining element of both the old and new Jewish enclaves. 8.2 LOST ELEMENTS In the early part of the cennuy, the homes of Jewish individuals were located close to the streets and factories where they worked. This is not the case in the modem context. While most East European Jewish immigrants were concentrated in one or two industries, members of the contemporary Jewish cornmunity participate in al1 sectors of the Canadian economy. Their places of work are located ail over Toronto, and the city is extensive to say the leaa. Moreover, while housing was readiiy available close to the industrial and commercial centres of Toronto in the early part of the century, this is no longer the case. Modem planning has divided much of Toronto into residential. commercial, and industrial zones which are separated by major automobile thoroughfares. As a consequence of this Iayout, few Torontonians have the option of living close to their place of work. Mon spend a significant amount of time commuting to and fiom work by car or by public transportation. While the Yiddish language and Yiddish culture were significant parts of the old Jewish enclave, the English language and North American culture predominate in the new Jewish enclave. It lould be noted that Yiddish is ail1 spoken by many Orthodox Jews. It is taught at many Jewish Day Schools, and over the course of the laa decade there has been a world-wide revival of Yiddish music, theatre, and writing. Nevertheless, Yiddish is simply not a si@cant pan of contemporary street Ue in Toronto. The marketplace is no longer a focal point of Jewish community. Modem planning and the exigencies of the modem economic climate have replaced the traditional market with suburban shopping centres, strip mails, supermarkets, and big box stores. No doubt the loss of this community element to suburban development suggems that the phenomenon of community is by no means Unmune to changes in the urban Bamework. Ln Iosing the traditional marketplace, the Jewish population has loa a valuable meeting place, a place with which ail Jewish people could identify and where ail could 'feel' commdty. At the same time, the Jewizh community has compeosated for this loss by developing new 'suburban' arenas for Jewish togethemess. These are discussed in the next section. 8.3 NEW ELEMENTS While Jewish education has long been central to the Jewish community of Toronto, the Jewish Day School merits distinction as a new element in the community landscape. With the possible exception of the ültra-Orthodox, all Jewish children living in the suburban neighbourhoods of Bathurst Street integrate with children of various ethnic origins. Like other ethnic minonties, they Live under pressure to confnrm to the dictates of poyular culture and the main aream. Tirne spent at a Jewish school - singing Jewish songs, leaming about Jewish culture and traditions, and learning Hebrew and Yiddish helps children to develop a strong sense of Jewish identity in the face of pressure to be iike everyone else. No doubt the leaders of the contemporary Jewish community, Jewish educators, parents and students are dedicated to the preservation of Jewish distinctiveness and uoity. Armed with a weil-developed sense of Jewish identity, culture, and history, Jewish children represent the greatea hope for the future of the Jewish people. In the early part of the 20~century there was Little need to organise secular Jewish culture. The early East European Jewish immigrants ca.sually and regularly met and socialised with one another in the areets, shops, restaurants, marketplace, synagogues, and factories OP the old enclave. As both the size of the Jewish population and the extent of the Jewish enclave Uicreased, and as the Jewish population integrated with other groups through the early and middle decades of the 20~ceutury, there developed a need to deliberately create oppodties for Jewish people to socialise with one another. The Jewish community centre may be regarded as a modem day expression of secular Jewish identity. The centre is a meeting place for Jewish people living in the sprawling residential areas of conternporary Toronto. It affords countless opportunities for Jewish people to meet and to socialise - to strengthen both their connection to the Jewisli community and their sense of Jewish identity. The Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel are major events of the laa Lialf-century. Accordingly, the mernorials which commemorate the events of the Holocaua aad the signs which caU for the support of lsrael are two new elements of the Jewish iandscape. hdeed, both the Hoiocaua and the establishment of a Jewish state in the Middle East had a profound impact on the Jewish community of Toronto and the whole of world Jewry. As such, both have become a sigdicant part of modem Jewish identity. Both are powerful sources of kinship and mutual interest within the Jewish community of Toronto and between the Jewish community of Toronto and Jewish communities around the world. To summarise. the old and new Jewish enclaves of Toronto have six landscape elements in common: the concentration of Jewish population, the proximity of synagogues to Jewish homes, the presence of kosher stores and services, the traditional mode of dress, the institution of the synagogue, and the phenomena of Jewish charity and welfarisni. These common elements have roots in the dense urban environment of the early 20' century and were fairly easily accommodated by the new suburban fiamework. Three landscape elements of the old Jewish enclave were lost in the transition fiom the dense urban setting to the suburban environment. Two of these elements - the proximity of Jewish homes to places of work and the marketplace as a focal point of community - were lost as a direct consequence of the suburban layout of the new enclave. The modem urban plan, or more specincally, the advent of zoning, strip malls, and shopping centres simply did not allow for the continuance of these landscape elements. inasmuch as they emerged as a consequence of Jewish needs and traditions, they also emerged in direct response to the urban fiamework. This is to Say that the ability of the Jewish immigrants to Live close to the streets and factories where they worked and the emergence of the marketplace as a focal point of community happened because of the dense urban fiamework in which everything was located in relative proximity to everything else and in wtuch one's oeed and ability to venture far tiom the urban centre were limited. The third loa element - the presence of the Yiddish language and Yiddish culture in the streets of the Jewish enclave - was loa, very simply, as a consequence of Linguistic and cultural assimilation into English speaking North Amenca. Finaily, three new elements of the contemporary Jewish landscape - the Jewish day school the Jewish community centre, and the large charitable/welfare organisation - signal the expansion of the institutional and organisational life of the Jewish community. This expansion may be regarded as a means of compensating for changes in both the urban kamework and the Me-style of the urban resident. Over the last several decades Toronto has grown at a tremendous rate. The physical distances separating family members, fkieuds, community and interest groups fiom one another are ever-increasing. So too are the demands on the individual's tirne and energy. As a consequence of technoiogical change. individuals now spend a great deal of time in fiont of cornputers, on telephones, at assembly lines, and banling trafic. Moreover, the changing nature of the global economy has meant that people are compeiled to work overtime, on weeknights and weekends, in order to remain cornpetitive. AU of these changes take tirne away fiom family and fiiends. from recreational and interest-group activities. They complicate the very developrnent of comrntmity. Ln the face of these changes, the expansion of the inaitutional and organisational Me of the Jewish community is a means of bringing Jewish people together. It is a means of numiring Jewish culture and tradition, and a means by which the Jewish people may care for one another. In short, the expansion of Jewish institutions and organisations is a means of creating a psychological sense of community, even as urban growth and technological innovation threaten to pull community ap art. 9. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the landscapes of the old and new Jewish enclaves share many of the same distinctive elements. As wch, it suggests that the landscapes of the two enclaves werehe built of the same community meaning. Specifically, the study demonarates that in each case, the laadscape is a reflection of a community wherein famiiy and kinship, tradition and ritual, and the welfare of mind and body are of the utmost significance. It is the reflection of a community wherein the bonds which hold people together have tremendous weight, arength, and depth. It is, in short, the reflection of a tmly complex and potentially au-encompassing community, wherein there are countless opportunities and paths for individual, social, organisational, institutional, spiritual and inteilectual involvement. No doubt this meaning of community was brought to North Amenca fiom the cities and shtetls of Eastern Europe. This study also demonstrates that inasmuch as many of the distinctive landscape elements of the old Jewish enclave are also part of the new Jewish enclave, the 'lewish' meaning of community may be built or rooted in both urban and suburban environments. This is to say tliat the existence of a çomplex wob of couiuiuu values. ideas, iraditiuus. and ways makes for strong and lasting community irrespective of changes to the urban Framework. Change is inevitable. Comrnunity mua be adaptive and dynamic or it is sure to decline and disintegrate. To be sure, the aoiy of Jewish Toronto is but another chapter in the long history of the Jewish people - a hiaory that is fil!ed -biithjomeys and migrations and with re-creations of Jewish community in so many different places. 9.1. RELEVANCE TO THE PROFESSIONOF LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE 9.1. I. Postmodernisrn and the Re-evaluation oj Ethnic Phces The signiflcance of the East European immigrant community to the life of contemporary Jewish Toronto is revealed in the landscape of the old Jewish enclave. The landscape reveals that the early community lay the foundation for Jewish Me in the city. Moreover. the landscape of the old enclave reveals that the early comrnunity represents a vital link between the life of the Jewish people in the cities and shtetls of Eastern Europe and the iife of the Jewish people in Canada at the end of the 20~century. hasrnuch as the landscape of the old Jewish enclave has such stories to tell, so it should be recognised and remembered. The preservation of key landscaye elements, the installation of public an, and the organisation of waiking tours and museum exhibits could well provide the residents of Toronto, and the members of the Jewish community in particular, with unprecedented opportunities to recali the landscape of the old Jewish enclave. Such measures could well help to establish a tangible link between paa and present. They could help to re-eaablish or to entrench the old neighbourhood as a symbolic arena of Jewish hiaory, recollection, and sentiment. At the very least, efforts to preserve and to remember the old Jewish enclave couid well enrich the contemporary cultural landscape of Toronto for the benefit of ail Torontonians and visitors to the city. As Dolores Hayden (1995) suggests in The Power of Place, historiaas, preservationias, environmentaiists, community planners, and artists are weLl suited to ùicrease public awareness of the landscape as a source of cultural histoly. As well, politicians and municipal officiais may work to entrench the preservation of cultural landmarks in municipal codes and by-laws. Architects, landscape architects, urban plamers and designers may draw public attention io landscape hiaory by including direct or symbolic references to the cultural landscape in their work. 9.1.2. Cornrnunity Planning and Design This shidy demonstrates that in the course of adapting to both the dense urban environment of early 20~century Toronto and the sprawling subwban environment of the last half-century, the Jewish community gave and continues to give meaning to the landscape. It niggests too that inasmuch as the Jewish community connm~tsmeaning in the landscape, the community also denves meaning ffom landscape elements developed by other community members and earlier generations. Furthemore, the study demonarates that in the case of Jewish Toronto, community meaning is superimposed upon a city skeleton of streets, lots, and buildings, and that community meaning also affected/affects the construction of new pans of the skeleton, like çpecific types of buildings. That community gives meaning to the landscape and that community meaning may be superimposed on the physicai fkarnework of a neighbourhood cohsthat the idea of plamed community insufficiently or inappropriately addresses the real nature of relationship between community and landscape. indeed, if the design professional is to achieve real success in the area of community development, heishe mua recognise that layers of community organisation develop by a process of slow and steady modification and adjustment to a physical setting. The designer mua recognise that he/she may well expedite this process of community development by reading the landscape and by working with the members of established communities to gain genuine understanding of thei community characteristics. Armed with such understanding, the designer may work to enhance existing aspects of community landscapes and to create opportunities for the particularities of communities to take root. In short, the designer mua use community understanding as the foundation for comrnunity development. He/she mua temper his/her aspirations to design community and instead, endeavour to design for community. Ln order to gain community understanding, planners and designers may organise public and stakeholder meetings. They may conduct community member surveys and take inventory of community characteristics, resources, landmarks, strengths, and vulnerabilities. No doubt these processes require tremendous involvement, patience, understanding, and thoughtfulness. 9.2. CONTRIB~TIONTO THE JEWISHCOMMUNITY The course of Jewish social hiaory in Toronto may be read £kom the landscape. It is the story of East European Jewish immigrants who were compelled to leave their homelands, who joumeyed across the ocean to make their way in a new land where dBerent cultures, ditferent laquages, and different customs prevailed. Lt is the aory of a poor and Little underaood minority who settled in an urban slum, and of a proud and determined people who banded together to forge a new and thriving Jewish community in the hean of the city. It is the aory of successful North Amencan Jews who migrated away fiom the downtown slum to the attractive neighbourhoods dong Bathurst Street and the suburban neighbourhoods to the north. Finally, it is the aory of an ever-growing Jewish community that is strong, proud, and determined to take care of its own. As knowledge of social history gives understanding of human expenence and as it comects people to the pan, the aones revealed in landscape aand to provide the Jewish community with an improved sense of self - a sense of its ongins, of its evolutionary path, of culturally significant events and places. The stones revealed in landscape also stand to provide tbe Jewish coriiniunity with ao improved sense of place - that is. a connection to the landscape and more specifically, to the places which are invested with hiaorical and cultural meaning. This study suggeas that landscape may be a foundation upon which a dialogue about the experience of Jewish community may develop. For example, one might design a program whereby Jewish children are taught to recognise the marks of Sewish community in what may appear to be ordinary, unexceptional landscape. By carefully seeing and investigating such marks as the synagogues which remain in the old Jewish enclave. children may leam about the experience of Jewish community in Toronto in the pre-war years. 9.3. FLNALTHOUGHTS 9.3.1. Tl,e Lan dscape of Jewish Toronto in his discussion of Jewish Me in 20' century America, Milton Plesur writes that "Symbolically they [the Jewish people] are in the shtetl again" (1982, p. 158). The synagogue, the Jewish school, the organisations for welfare, and other aspects of modem Jewish iife bind the community together with such tremendous arength. While the contemporary Jewish landscape may not look iike the landscape of the Old World shtetl or even iike that of the otd Jewish enclave, one need not look too far beneath the surface of landscape to discover that the Jewish community is as rich and as vital as ever. Perhaps it is moa appropriate to end with a note that over the last several years there have been signs of a revitalisation of Jewish Life in downtown Toronto. The 1991 Census of Canada found a Jewish population of no less than 15 000 Living in the downtom core. A recently published article in the Globe and Mail relates that a sigdcant number of baby boomers have moved downtown, bringing with them a growing interest in theu Jewish roots, religion and culture (Brecke~dge1998). Once again, downtown synagogues are Full to overflowing. This year saw the opening of the Downtown Jewish Day School, the fia of its kind in decades. These occurrences may well signal the start of yet another phase in the evolution of Toronto's Jewish landscape. 9.3.2. The Interrelatioriship between Community and Lan dscape This midy demonstrates that inasmuch as community gives meaning to the landscape, the landscape gives meaning to community. in slightly varied tenus, it demonstrates the interrelationship between community and landscape. as well as the value of the landscape-community mode1 as a means to disclose the complexities of that relationship. No doubt all individuals (and architects, landscape architects, and planners in particular) stand to benefit fiom developing an increased awareness of the mutual relationship between people and place. Lndividuals who are sensitive to the complexities of that relationship rnay work harder to recognise and protect the elements of landscape which tdymatter. They may work harder to easure that new elements of landscape are built or infised with the most beneficial or constructive meaning. In short, they may work harder to b~gout the very best of landscape and by extension, they may bring out the very best of human being. GLOSSARY (Wylen 1989) Anti-Semitism: Racial Hatred of Jews. Ashkenasim: Jews of East European origin. Bar/Bat Mitzvah: The religious natus of a Jew beyond thuteen years. The attainment of this status is recognised by calhg the child to the pulpit of the synagogue for the public reading of the scripture. Cheder: Jewish elementary school. High Holy Days: The Jewish Holy Days in the fa11 - Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Holocaust: The murder of six million Jews during the Second World War. Kashruth: The laws conceming permitted and forbidden foods. Kipah: A small hat wom to cover the head in worship in accordance with Jewish cuaom: also cailed a ynrn~rrlke. Koslrec "Ritually acceptable"; especially, food which may be eaten in accordance with Jewish ritual law. Landmanschaft: A synagogue or club made up of immigrants fiom the same Ewopean city or region. Latkes: Fried potato pancakes, eaten especially on Hanukah. Menorah: A candelabrum; a seven branched nienorah stood in the Temple in Jerusalem; a nine-branched menorah, called a hmzsikicrh, is used in the celebration of Hanukah. Payas: Curls or hair in fiont of the ears; wom by Jewish boys. Pogrom: Slavic term for riot; an organised riot againa Jews, especiaily in early modem and modem Eastern Europe. Sephardirn: Jews of Spanish origin. Shabbut: The Sabbath; the seventh day, dedicated to rest. Shoket: A Jewish professional expert in the kosher slaughtering of meat. Shtetl: A Jewish village in Eastern Europe. Tallit: The prayer shawl in which the traditional Jewish male wraps himself in moming worship; also called a tallis. Yeshiva: an advauced traditional Jewish school equivalent to high school or college. Yiddishkeit: "Jewishness"; the Jewish culture of Eastern Europe. Zionism: Modem national liberation movement of the Jewish people. REFERENCES Abella, Irving. 1990. A Coat of Mary Colours: Two Centuries of Jewish Lrfe in Canada. Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys Limited. Abrahamson, Mark. 1996. L/rbart Emlaves: Ident.).. and Place in America. New York: St. Martin's Press. Agnew. John A and James S. Duncan. 1989. The Power of Place. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Alba, Richard D. 1990. Ethnzc Mentis.. New Haven: Yale University Press. Arreola, Daniel D. 1995. 'Urban Etbnic Landscape Identity". Geographical Review v. 85 October 1995. New York: The American Geographical Society. Babbie, Earl. 1995. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, California: Wadnvorth Publishing Company. Barreil, John. 1972. The ldea of Lartdscape and The Setue of Pime 1730-1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bathurst Jewish Centre. 1998/89 Program Book. Ben, Colin and Howard Newby, eds. 1974. The Sociology of Contrnurtrfy. London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd. . 197 1. Commtt~riiyStttdies. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Bloor JCC. 1997198 Propms. Board of Jewish Education. 1998. Duy Schoois (iisq. Bourne, L.S., A.M. Baker, W. Kalbach, R Cressman and D. Green. 1986. Camda's Ethrric Mmaic: Characteristics ami Patterns of Ethnic Origirt Groups itr Urbatr Areas. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto. Breckenridge, Joan. 1998, September 8. "Jewish families put dom new roots in old parts of city". The Globe and iMaiI. Toronto. Bureau of Jewish Education. 1957, April. Lessoru for Chiidrert on the History of the Torot~toJewish Commurtity. Toronto. Bureau of Municipal Research. 19 1 6. What 1s " The Ward " goitzg to do with Tororiro? Toronto. Canadian Jewish Congress. 1974, June 15. A Seme ofSpadinu @anphlet). Toronto. Chudacoff, Howard P. and Judith E. Smith. 1988. 7he Evolurion of Arnerrcntt Llrbar~ Soclep. Englewood ClifEs, New Jersey: Rentice Hall. City of Toronto Planning Board. 1960. Ethnic Origm of the Population of Toronto. Toronto: 1960. C osgrove, Denis. 1984. Social Formation and Spbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm. Creative Marketing Group. Metro Toronto 'sJewish Resource Gzcide. Toronto. Dernographic Analysis Group Committee. 1995. GTA Projile. Toronto. Dershowitz, Alan. 1997. The Vmishing American Jew: In search of Jewish iderttiy for the next cenhtry. Boston: Little, Brown. Donegan, Rosemary. 1985. Spadim Avenue. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre. Duany, Andres and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 199 1. Tmand Town-Makzng Principles. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Graduate School of Design/ Rizzoli. Duncan, James and David Ley, rds. 1993. PZaceiCulture/Represeritation. London: Routledge. Edwrrds, Ailan D. and Dorothy G. Jones. 1976. Conirnunzty arid Conimzinip Developmert. The Hague: Mouton. Flavelle, Dana. 1986, October 23. "Site of lu Jewish hospital being demolished". The Tororrto Star. Toronto. Gans, Herbert J. 1962. The Urban Yillagers: Group and Clas in the Life of Italiatr- Arnericans. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Goodchild, Barry. 1990. "Planning and the modern/poamodem debate". TPR 61(2). Gottschalk, Shimon S. 1975. Communities and Alternatives: An Exploration of the Lirnits of Planfiing. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hamey, Robert and Harold Troper. 1975. Immigrants: A Portrait of the Urbatl Experiertce, 1890- 1930. Torootc: Van Nostrand Reinhold Ltd. Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmoderniy: An Enqziiry into the Origrtu of Czrltzrral Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Eiackwrll. Hayden, Dolores. 1995. The Power of Place: Urbarr Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Hiebert, Daniel. 1993 "Jewish Lmmigrants and the Garment Induary of Toronto, 190 1- 193 1: A Study of Ethnic and Class Relations". Antials of the .4ssociation of Anrericati Geographers v.83 June 1993. Washington: The Association of Amencan Geograp hers. Hillery, George A. 1955 "Dehitions of Community: Areas of Agreement". Rural Sociology. v.20 1955. . 1968. Commtinal Orgariisatiorcr: A Study of Local Societies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hitchcock, John. 198 1. Neighbourhood Forrn and Corivenience: A City-Szibzrrbarr Cornparison. Toronto : University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Humer, Albert. 1974. Symbolic Cornmzmities: The Persistence artà Change of Chicago .i Local Comrnunities. Chicago; The University of Chicago Press. Jackson, John BrinckerhoE 1984. Discovering the heernacular Landcape. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jacobs, Jane. 196 1. me Death and Lfe of Great Arnerican Cities. New York: Vintage Books. Jason, Leonard A. 1997. Comrnunity Bziildirrg. Westport, Cornecticut: Raeger. Jewish uiformation Service. 1997. November 1. Con~rnzrnityDirectory - Congregatioris (lisr). Jones, Donald. 1976, January 3 1. 'Toronto's ka synagogue is now a Greek Orthodox church". 7he Toronto Star. Toronto. Ka lbach, W amen E. 1 980. Historical and Gerzerational Perspectives of Ethrzic Residential Segregation in Toronto, Canada: 1851-1 97 1. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto. . 1990. 'Zthnic Residential Segregation and its Significance for the lndividual in an Urban Setting". In Raymond Breton, Wsevolod W. Isajiw, Warren E. Kalbach and Jeffery G. Reitz. 1990. Etlvzic Identity and Eqiialiv: Varieties of Experie~zcein a Canadian City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Kasher. Robert J. 1997. Ethnic Toronto: A Complete Guide to the Marly Faces ard Cultures of Toronto. Chicago: Passport Books. Kashmth Council of Toronto. 1997. Kmhnith Directory 19971'98. Katz, Peter. 1994. 7he New Urbanism: Tauardr an Architecture of Communziy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kayfetz, Ben. 1957. Toronto Jewry: An Historzcal Sketch. Toronto: The Canadian Jewish Congress. . 1959. 'The Evolution of the Jewish Community in Toronto". In Albert Rose, ed. 1959. A People and ifs Faith. Toronto: University ofToronto Press. Kelbaugh, Douglas. 1997. Cornmon Place: Toward Neighbourhood a~dRegional Desigr. Seattle: University of Washiugton Press. Kolatch, Alfied J. 1995. The Jewish Book of Why. New York: Jonathan David Publishers Inc. Ley, David. 1983. A Social Geography of the City. New York: Harper and Row. Lin, Jan. 1995. ''Ethic Plses, Pnstniodc~rm,and Urban Change in Hou-tnn". The Suc~ological Quarterb v. 36 Fail 1995. Berkeley, California: Midwea Sociological Society. Lyon, Larry. 1 987. The Comrnunip in UrbanSociep. Ph iladelp hia: Temple University Press. Mah,Murray. 1978, September 22. ''Downtown shuls ail1 very much a reality". 73e Globe and Mail. Toronto. Marshall, Jeannie. 1998, November 10. "Corne back to the synagogue, already". The Natioruzl Post. Toronto. Mays, John Bentley. 1997, August 16. 'The process worked but the art doesn't". The Globe alrd Mail. Toronto. Meinig, D.W. 1979. The Interpretatiori of Ordinary Landscupes: Geographical Essqs. New York: Odord University Press. Metro Planning - Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department. 199 1. 1991 Cemzcs A tlm. Milroy, Beth Moore. 19--. "Into the Postmodem Weightlessness". v. 10(3). Minar, David W. 1969. The Concept of Community. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Model, Suzanne. 1985. "A Comparative Perspective on the Ethnic Enclave: Blacks, Italians, and Jews in New York City". International Migration Re~iewv.19 Spring 1985 New York: Centre for Migration Studies. Neufeld. 19 15, October 28. "Life in the Ward". Noble, Men G., ed. 1992. To Build in a New Lad Ethnic Landscapes in North Arnerica. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Park, Robert E., Emest W. Burgess and Rodenck D. McKenzie. 1967. The City. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Phillips. Bruce A. 1991. "Sociological Analysis of Jewish Identity". In David M. Gordis and Yaov Ben-Horin, eds. 199 1. Dejirirzg Jewish Identig. Los Angeles: The Susan and David Wiistein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies. Picard, Andre. 1995, February !7. "Half of Canada's Jews pick Toronto as Home". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Plesur, Milton. 1982. Jmish Life in Twcntieth Cenfury Arnerica. Chicago: Nelson-Hail. Pollock-Eilwand, Nancy. 1997. Planning for the Larzakcape Idea. Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy. University ofwaterloo. Relph, Edward. 1987. The Modern Urbarz Lmdscape. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Rischin, Moses? ed. 1987. 7he Jews of North Arnerica. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Rousseau, Mary F. 199 1. Community: The Tie Thar Sin& Maryland: University Ress of Amerka, hc. Rowe, Colin. 1984. Collage City. Boston: Birkhauser. Sachar, Howard M. 1990. The Course of Modern Jewish Histoty. New York: Vintage Books. Schama, Simon. 1996. Londrcape and Memory. Toronto: Vintage Canada. Simpson, J.A. and E.S.C. Weiner. 1989. The Orford Engiish Dictionary. OOxrd: Clarendon Press. Speisman, Stepben A., Duector of the Ontario Jewish Archives. 1998, September 2. Interview. . 1985. "St. John's Shtetl: the Ward in 191 1". in Robert Hamey. ed. 19 85. Gathering Place: Peopies and Ne ighbourhoods 01' Toronto, 1834- 1945. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario. . 1979. The Jews of Tororito: A History tu 1937. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Statistics Canada. 1992. Profile of ceruus tracts itz Toronto, Part A. Ottawa: Induary, Science and Technology Canada. 199 1 Census of Canada. Catalogue number 95- 353. . 1984. Toronto 150: Portrait of a Charlging City. ORawa. Stilgoe, John R 1982. Cornmon Landcape ofArnericap 1580 to 1845. New Haven: Yale University Press. Torczyner, lames L., Shan L. Brotman and Jay Brodbar. 1995. Rapid Growth atld Trar1sfbrrnarion: Dernograph c Chailerzges Facirzg lghe Jewrsh Comrnmty of Greater Tormito. Toronto: McGill Consortium for Ethnicity & Strategic Social Planning. Toronto. Tuan, Y i-Fu. 1977. Space and Place: me Perspective of Experience. Minneap O lis: University Of Minnesota Press. Tulchinsky, Gerald. 1992. Taking Root: The Origim of the Canadian Jewish Commutiity. Toronto: Lester Publishing Limited. University Press. Venturi, Robert. 1977. Complexiz)Jand Contradzction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modem Art. Vitek William and Wes Jackson, eds. 1996. Rooted in the Lard. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wylen. Stephen M. 1989. Settings of Silver. New York: Paulia Ress. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3) APPLIED 4 IMAGE. lnc -.- 1653 East Main S:reet --- Rochester. NY 14609 USA ------Phone: 71 6/482-0300 ---- Fa: 7 16/288-5989 1993. Appiied Image. lx..Ali Righls Reservad