Bathing suits and Body Image

This shouldn't surprise me. Bathing suits and body image are clearly linked today and women face relentless pressure about conforming to a particular body image; a process encouraged and abetted by the weight loss industry. And yet I am a little surprised at how early that process started; as this advertisement from the Toronto Daily Star indicates, it was already well underway in 1908 and the bathing beauty as a model of appearance had already been established.

("Reduce your fat," Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday, August 4, 1908, Page 10)

Naughty bathers and genteel boaters

Rivers, boats and bathers rubbed shoulders in an awkward manner in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. If this Toronto Star article is to be believed bathing boys were an ongoing problem along Ontario’s Thames River;

Chatham’s Bad Boys
Swim out to Canoe Parties and Frighten the Ladies
Chatham, June 16—Canoeists on the Thames River have been caused a lot of annoyance lately by parties of boys.
 The youngsters have lately started a practice which is reported to be of a highly criminal nature, namely, some of their number go in bathing, and, when a canoe passes, they swim out to it and grasp hold of the sides, and in many cases nearly upset it. In fact, they make believe they are trying to do this, and have in many instances to be driven away by a strenuous use of the paddle on the heads of the recalcitrant boys. This has happened on several occasions, in one instance the canoe being loaded with young ladies and gentlemen the former of whom were nearly frightened into hysterics by the efforts of the lads.
 Pleasure seekers on the river have always put up with a certain amount of trouble with boys possessing evil inclinations but at present the matter has become unbearable. It is thought that it is high time that the boys were given a thorough lesson and convinced of the painful results that follow erring ways.[1]

The Thames wasn’t the only place where men and boys were up to no good. The Humber River routinely had encounters between bathers and boaters. A letter writer who went under the name “Decency” described in the Toronto Daily Star on Aug. 23, 1904 a recent Sunday stroll down by the Humber and the "number of men (?)" that he saw bathing there. The use of the question mark neatly illustrating his view on how their behaviour disrupted their status as men in his view.

“I observed about twenty well-matured men in swimming without bathing suits. While standing there a gasoline launch came up the river with two ladies and two gentlemen aboard. Some of the bathers, either from their absentmindedness or an inclination to vulgarly expose themselves, did not even get in the water, and, to make matters worse, the party in the launch were compelled to put up with such indecent remarks as “Come in and have a swim; the water’s fine,” and others unnecessary to mention to convince the police authorities that these baths should be compelled to do two things—equip themselves with bathing suits, and learn to mind their own business. In addition to the parties in the gasoline launch there were many other ladies and their escorts around the bathing place, and I think it would be in their interests if a policeman in plain clothes were commissioned to pay a visit to this spot.”[2]

Periodically the police did step in. In a June 25, 1905 article, The Toronto Daily Star noted that two constables visited the area and “secured a long list of names, some of which are incorrect, of boys swimming in the river without bathing suits. A large number of persons whose names were taken were naked, and others were using profane language to persons paddling up the river.”[3] It was an ongoing battle, however, and the day of the undressed bathers was far from over in the Humber River. A story the next year noted the York County Council was again receiving complaints of people in the Humber on Sunday not wearing their bathing suits.[4]

Class, gender, technology and the use of waterways and landscapes all collide neatly in these little vignettes. Had the bathers in Decency’s Humber scene minded their manners, kept quiet and ducked in the water when encountered by their betters they might have blended into the landscape and the people in the boats would have pretended to ignore them. But instead they used their naked bodies to take possession of the landscape and actively drew the attention of the boaters. In Decency’s mind they needed to be brought to heel.

---

[1] “Chatham’s Bad Boys,” The Toronto Daily Star, June 16, 1906, Page 5.

[2] “Nude Bathing in the Humber,” The Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday, Aug. 23, 1904, Page 4.

[3] “A Raid on the Humber Bathers,” The Toronto Daily Star, Monday, June 26, 1905, Page 1.

[4] “Severe Censure on South York Schools,” The Toronto Daily Star, Wednesday, June 13, 1906, Page 11.

Made it out of a Postage Stamp.

In the 1950s, newspapers were titillated by the scantier bathing suits that could be found on women in North America.
Or rather, in the 1930s, newspapers were titillated by the bathing suits that could be found on women in North America.
No, wait, we'll get to all of that eventually. At this point we're still fascinated by what's happening to bathing suits in 1900. Or at least the Toronto Star was; it ran a series of cartoons poking fun at the subject in 1900. The Star seems less critical and more bemused by the changes that were clearly occurring in how women could be seen at the beach. It's worth keeping in mind that while women could suit up and enjoy visiting resorts out of town, many of the swimming spaces in Toronto in 1900 were either male only by design or by practice. But that was changing rapidly.

("It certainly was cute," The Toronto Daily Star, Saturday, June 23, 1900, Page 11)

("There were others," The Toronto Daily Star, Friday, August 3, 1900, Page 4.)

Spit take

Meet Bylaw 4358, passed by Toronto’s City Council on April 11, 1904: A Bylaw to prevent spitting on sidewalks, and in public buildings and street cars.

The bylaw stated, “No person shall spit upon any public sidewalk which is upon a highway, or in any passageway, stairway or entrance to any building used by the public, or in any room, hall or building to which the public resort, or in any street car or other public conveyance, except into a proper receptacle.”

It went on to list charges of $1 for each offence or up to three days in the common goal of the City of Toronto. While the bylaw was passed in April, people were given until June 1 to get ready for the new spitting regime.

Full disclosure; I giggled when I first came across this in the Toronto City Council minutes. (Most of the information that follows can be found directly in the City Council minutes/appendices, but I have to thank James Fraser, an archivist at the Toronto City Archives who, about 30 years ago, put together a file of the relevant city council entries and communications surrounding Bylaw 4358. Fraser called the file “Great Expectorations” and my sense is that he had a giggle too when he was putting it together.) Other people who have looked at bylaws around spitting have typically taken a similar light-hearted view, including this openfile.ca blog.

But as it turns out there’s nothing unusual about creating bylaws to police spitting and the practice isn’t limited to the early twentieth century. The city of Kenora was discussing adding spitting regulations to its bylaws in 2010.[1] And Toronto’s bylaw isn’t just a chuckle worthy look into the past. Revised and adjusted most recently in 1994, it’s still on the books as bylaw 1994-0706 and similar bylaws exist across Canada.

The official move towards regulating spit, or expectoration as they called it, appears to have started on Jan. 12, 1903 when Ald. Noble moved that the city petition the Ontario Legislature for power to enact a bylaw “prohibiting expectoration on sidewalks, street cars and other public places.”[2] The province came through with the amendment on June 27, 1903; granting cities, towns, and villages the ability to prohibit spitting on “sidewalks and pavements, and in the passage ways, stairways, and entrances to buildings used by the public, and in rooms, halls, buildings, and places to which the public resort, streets cars, public conveyances and in such other public places as the council may by such by law designate.”[3] Toronto and other communities across Ontario now had the critical tools they needed to deal with spitting. The amendment appears to have given communities the ability to outlaw spitting entirely within their boundaries and the use of the term “pavement” suggests a neat little built form/natural environment divide for where spitting might be allowed and where it would not be. However, Toronto and other cities that adopted such bylaws were a little more nuanced in where they restricted spitting.

Armed with the new legislation, Toronto introduced its spitting bylaw on Jan. 25, 1904, and from there it worked its way through the system of committees and council meetings before being passed in April.[4]

Watching the conversation about spitting in Toronto, Ormsby Graydon, London’s city engineer took it upon himself to suggest that the city give people a chance to get acquainted with the new law and hand out warning cards to violators to tell them that charges could follow.[5] Graydon noted that in London, Ontario, the police and street car conductors doled out the cards in advance. Toronto’s council approved similar cards which read, “Please to not spit on the sidewalks, in street cars or in any public building. City bylaw no. 4358 forbids this”[6]  London’s cards listed a potential $50 fine. When Toronto was drafting its bylaw the city council did consider a similar $50 fine or up to six months in jail but then reduced the fine to a more modest $1 or three days.[7]

Historians have looked at bylaws like this and considered them to be part of a broader effort to control the working class.[8] We certainly get hints of that from the bylaws supporters. The Toronto branch of the National Council of Women of Canada threw its support behind the spitting bylaw in a letter penned April 15, 1904. In a two-paragraph summary of its support the group listed sanitary concerns, called “expectoration”—they wouldn’t even write the word “spitting”—an “offensive habit” and hoped “other municipalities will follow this commendable example in the effort to extirpate the objectionable practice from our cities.”[9] The group’s eyes seem focused on the people doing the spitting rather than simply the act of spitting itself.

Writing on behalf of the Toronto Medical Society in a letter dated April 9, 1904, Dr. A. McPhedran led off with a look at the health issues involved in spitting: “The danger from spitting on the side-walks is much greater than the general public have any conception of. The material adheres to ladies’ dresses, and to everyone’s boots, is carried into homes, there becomes dry and is shaken into the atmosphere, and is a dangerous means of infection to all in the household, and all households, no matter how well kept, are liable to this danger.”[10] Spittle was a working class product that could make its way into the most well kept of homes. McPhedran goes on to add, “The practice of spitting in such places is a very objectionable one from any point of view, and the public only need to be educated in order to have it stopped.”

Not everyone was enamored with the city’s efforts to control spitting or as convinced about the medical soundness of the rationale for doing so. In a letter published in the Star on April 6, 1904, William Haslam of 573 King Street, critiqued the impending bylaw as both impracticable and an “extreme degree of police interference with habits necessary to individual comfort and cleanliness.” Haslam went on to write that the bylaw was being based on a shoddy medical interpretation of the hazards of microbes in spit but even if the spittle held such a threat, he argued that forcing people to swallow their expectoration ad nauseum might harm them by filling them with filth.[11] Haslam’s letter amounts to a defence of people’s freedom of embodiment and a skeptical rebuttal of McPhedran’s medical suggestions.

As the advice from London suggests, Toronto wasn’t the only place to take on spitting. Montreal, Hamilton, and Brantford, to name a few, were all discussing spitting or passing bylaws to prohibit it.[12] And London, which had passed its bylaw in the spring of 1904, was already starting to charge people; three people were hauled into court on July 5 and while the judge let them off with a warning, he said the next batch in front of him would face fines.[13]

Australian pianist Charles R. Sweet was playing in Toronto about a month after the spitting bylaw had been passed and joked about it with the crowd between sets, noting, “that in Melbourne, Australia, the by-law requires the pedestrian not to “expectorate” on the “footway,” whereas at Sidney(sic) it says, “Do not spit on the sidewalk.” So that … if you want to expectorate, you have to go to Sydney, but if you only want to spit, you have to go to Melbourne.”[14] Sweet sets up a fun little hierarchy for the terms.

Clearly concerns about spitting were not limited to North America; it was a (not surprisingly, I suppose) global issue. But lest we think that Toronto was a laid back spitting sort of town, the term “expectorate” was used while the bylaw was working its way through council and only turned into “spitting” when the bylaw itself was written. It seems it was one thing to legislate against “spitting” but quite another to debate the matter using such an uncouth term.

By July the bylaw was being enforced in Toronto, although no one had actually been charged yet and police said they would warn people and only target aggressive spitters who persisted in the habit. An unnamed police inspector interviewed by the newspaper said, “Haven’t you noticed the difference already? … The by-law had a good effect, and the sidewalks are much cleaner than they were formerly. This is especially noticeable on Sundays.” Another officer went on to add that the bylaw was successfully redirecting spit from the sidewalk to the street, where spitting was still legal.[15] The latter point raises an interesting question regarding spitting bylaw enforcement; presumably the issue was where the spit landed not where it was produced. One could spit from the sidewalk provided the spittle landed on the street. The city was spatializing spit or, dare I say, creating zones for it. I find that interesting because during the same period the city was creating a bylaw to regulate residential and industrial zones.[16]

By 1908, the anti-spitting regime seemed to be well entrenched in Ontario. A Toronto Star story noted that two men, named Larshelle and Dixon were caught spitting in Port Arthur, Ontario, and charged: “They pleaded guilty in court and were given the choice of paying costs or spending ten days in jail. They hadn’t the cash and to jail they went.”[17]

As I noted, historians have seen efforts at class control as being at the heart of such legislation. Larshelle and Dixon probably felt there was a class aspect at work when they were shunted off to jail after not being able to pay their fine. And in the very same report looking at spitting the city’s Board of Health was also recommending the city ask the province for permission for “the regulation, and inspection at any time, of lodging houses, tenements, laundries, etc., the attention of the Board having been directed by the Medical Health Officer to the much over-crowded and unsanitary condition of certain premises, and the necessity in many cases of a night inspection to properly determine the conditions.”[18] So we have to read these as being part of larger concerns about the risks involved with urban bodies, whether from how they lived to how they behaved, to what they did as they strolled down the sidewalk. There’s no reason to believe that things have changed; class, race and ethnicity are in play whenever behaviour is regulated as this 2001 story from Now Magazine, in which a black man relates an encounter with police after spitting into the street, suggests.

But I don’t think we need to end the discussion there. While it’s never clearly stated, I’d suggest part of the incentive for the spitting bylaw was probably the popularity of chewing tobacco at the time. We get hints of this potential rationale in the bylaw’s wording when it clarifies, “except into a proper receptacle” by which, I would suggest, they meant a spittoon. The appreciation for the cleaner streets expressed by Toronto’s police could also have mean that they were seeing fewer gobs of tobacco on the sidewalks. In that sense, the spitting bylaw could be considered a predecessor to our current smoking bylaws; the difference being that people were expelling spit rather than smoke.

Technology also has an impact in this discussion; putting so many people together on the streetcar pushed issues like spitting into, no pun intended, the public eye. Street cars and public transit are one of the primary focal points of this legislation and are held up as the measure of its success.

Gender matters as well. The Toronto Local of the National Council of Women of Canada weighed in, putting its moral authority behind the project. McPhedran specifically mentioned the likelihood of women dragging spit into buildings as one of the rationales for the bylaw; a statement that suggest both that women shouldn’t have to deal with spit on the ground and that they were out in public moving around in such a way as to be at risk of encountering it. Similarly when Toronto’s police commented on the effectiveness of the bylaw, they held up cleaner sidewalks on Sunday as being one of its accomplishments. I would suggest the unspoken beneficiaries were couples or families out for a promenade; an example of class and gender working together. McPhedran’s comments also suggest the growing power of the medical authority, though Haslam’s counter comments also indicate how that authority did not come without doubt or criticism.

And, of course, I love the spatial nature of this. Spitting isn’t meant to disappear entirely, but we’re now zoning where it can and should take place; just as we zone where people should go to the washroom, where they should bathe or where industry should go.

---

[1] Reg Clayton, “Spitting ban bylaw,” The Kenora Daily Minor and News, Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010, 8:56 a.m. (Accessed on Saturday, Nov. 17, 2012.) http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/2010/08/04/spitting-ban-bylaw

[2] Toronto City Council Minutes 1903, Item 74, Page 20, Jan. 12, 1903. See also Toronto City Council Appendix A, Board of Control Report No. 4, March 6, 1903.

[3] Ontario Statue 3 Edward VII Chapter 10 Sec. 110, amending Section 553 of the Municipal Act, Item 12, Great Expectorations file, Unusual Bylaws, Vertical File, Toronto City Archives.

[4] City Council Minutes 1904, Item 113, Page 31, Jan. 25, 1904, Toronto City Archives.

[5] Ormsby Graydon, city engineer, London, Ont., letter dated March 20, Great Expectorations file, Unusual Bylaws, Vertical File, Toronto City Archives. The letter is mentioned in the City Council Minutes, 1904, Item 249, Page 94, April 11, 1904.

[6] City Council Minutes, 1904, Item 274, Page 102, April 11, 1904, Toronto City Archives.

[7] City Council Minutes, 1904, Item 236, page 86, March 28, 1904. Also see, James Fraser, Great Expectorations file, Unusual Bylaws, Vertical File, Toronto City Archives.

[8] Helen Boritch and John Hagan, “Crime and the Changing Forms of Class Control: Policing Public Order in "Toronto the Good,"1859-1955,” Social Forces, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Dec., 1987), pp. 307-335. Page 325. I mention Britch and Hagan because they touch on Toronto and spitting directly, but there’s a large historiography that deals with issues of urban reform at the turn of the century, including Mariana Valverde’s ridiculously good The Age of Light, Soap, and Water: Moral Reform in English Canada, 1885-1925.

[9] Margaret E. Riddell, Toronto Local Council letter to city council, April 15, 1904, Item 17, Great Expectorations file, Unusual Bylaws, Vertical File, Toronto City Archives.

[10] Dr. A. McPhedran, April 9, 1904, Item 12, Great Expectorations file, Unusual Bylaws, Vertical File, Toronto City Archives.

[11] William Haslam, “The Spitting Bogie,” The Toronto Daily Star, Wednesday, April 6, 1904, Page 6.

[12] “The Spitting Nuisance,” The Toronto Daily Star, Monday, July 21, 1902, page 8. “To Stop Spitting,” The Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday, June 7, 1904, page 6 (The Hamilton story specifically mentions that the bylaw will be targeted at spitting on streetcars.)  “Reforms in Brantford,” The Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday, September 1, 1903, page 3.

[13] “No spitting in London,” The Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday, July 5, 1904, Page 7.

[14] “Music and Drama,” The Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday, May 31, 1904, Page 8.

[15] “Cleaner Sidewalks,” The Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday, July 5, 1904, Page 2.

[16] Board of Control Report No. 21, June 24, 1904, City Council Appendix A, Page 697. Toronto City Archives.

[17] “Spitting is costly,” The Toronto Daily Star, Saturday, July 4, 1908. Page 18.

[18] Adam Lynd, M.D., chair, Board of Health Report #3, March 4, 1903. Toronto City Council Appendix A, 1904, Toronto City Archives.

Purifying the Bay

This is from Toronto Mayor O. A. Howland’s inaugural address in 1902. Since the late nineteenth century Toronto’s mayor’s had fallen into the habit of starting each year with an address to set what they hoped would be their agenda. Howland had much to say about the waterfront in 1902. The breaks in the text are my addition.

We have a quasi undertaking from the representatives of the Government at Ottawa that if we will do our share in cleansing the Bay by the construction of a proper trunk sewer, the Government will come to our aid and do its proper share in the deepening and improvement of our harbor. If they fulfil that, it means an expenditure of Government money in the neighbourhood of half a million to three-quarters of a million of dollars, and the perfecting of our harbor and our dockage facilitates, so that they will stand highest on the whole of Lake Ontario, and equally high with any place on the whole chain of St. Lawrence waters. 

The purification of the Bay will restore that beautiful sheet of water to its original attractiveness, healthfulness and utility. Old residents of Toronto can remember that the playground of Toronto. The training ground for the muscle and blood of young Toronto was not the Island or some distant lake, it was the waters of Toronto Bay. They launched on them without fear and without discomfort from the harbor slips. 

We know that is now impossible. We know, apart altogether from traffic conditions, that most offensive conditions greet the oarsmen on those waters. With our large athletic population with the athletic advantages a great water front offers, it is no small object, the purification of that Bay back to its original conditions, while the sanitary necessity is pressing itself upon us continually. We must remember the effect also upon the probable attractiveness of Toronto to travelers and to new residents. They are now greeted in the most offensive way at what ought to be our beautiful and attractive and commodious water front. Remove that, and we have an attractive reception for every visitor, and something that will be remembered by prospective residents. 

The improvement of the remainder of the water front couples itself with those projects. Part of the harbor project is the creation of a great system of dockage and opportunities for factory development which will be attractive to new industries on a large scale. Plans are being made, under directions given last year, for the railway connections with the east end of the City and the new proposed dockage accommodation. The west end of the water front of our City more naturally offers itself for decorative and recreative purposes, and plans of that kind are being matured looking forward to establishing one of the most beautiful drives in North America along the shore past the Garrison Commons, the Exhibition Grounds and into Humber Bay. In connection with those projects, it may be necessary to take up the permanent question of the re-arrangement of the railway tracks at the west end of the city, so that the danger and expense of level crossings may be entirely done away with.[1]
 

There’s so much going on here. It seems like the potential for industrial development and the federal government money for that purpose is the carrot and stick being used to convince Toronto deal with the fact that sewage is still being dumped into Toronto Bay.

It’s interesting to see Toronto and its bay being held up as the center of natural invigoration rather than the point that people escape from. It was a noteworthy statement at a time when the ring of recreation areas around Toronto, the Muskoka and other areas, were being widely advertised in local newspapers. 

I’m also intrigued with the notion of people being “now greeted in the most offensive way at what ought to be our beautiful and attractive and commodious water front. Remove that, and we have an attractive reception for every visitor, and something that will be remembered by prospective residents.” In 1902 it might have seemed that the bay was still the city’s front yard with the expectation that people would arrive by boat or ferry. The reality was probably that most arrived by train or road even then, and hardly saw the bay. Today the bay seems both front yard and back yard to the city. For people who take a ferry to the island or who boat on Lake Ontario, the bay is unquestionable the city’s front yard; a place where the city preens and reflects its modernity in the waters. But for people who do none of these things, what role does the bay or Lake Ontario play; are they front yard or back?

---

[1] O.A Howland, Mayor’s Inaugural Address, City Council Appendix C, Page 1, Toronto City Archives. The address was delivered Jan. 13, 1902.

Dangerous rivers/screened bodies

I like this little article because it says something about how bathing in the Don River had to balance between moral and physical safety/between the body and the physical environment.

Toronto’s bathing space along the Don River was restricted to boys in 1902 and typically they bathed without any clothes on, creating a moral hazard of sorts for girls and women who might see them. It was a slighter hazard because they were boys, rather than men, but still, their bathing space required a degree of privacy. (I still need to sort out the precise dynamics of age restrictions around these swimming areas, but it would appear they were also aimed at shielding boys from sexually mature teens and men and not, I think, as one might assume now, due to concerns about sexual predation.)

Meanwhile, the Don’s riverbed changed from year to year; what had been a safe swimming space last year, was filled with hidden holes this year and so the bathing space had to be moved. But it couldn’t be moved too close to Rosedale Ravine Drive, a relatively new addition to the Don valley landscape, because that would put the undressed bodies in plain sight. So a compromise emerged, while the bathing location was changed to protect the bodies from a dangerous natural environment, a screen had to be put in place to protect passersby against the threat of undressed bodies.

Don Bathing Place Changed
 The city bathing place in the Don is a decidedly dangerous spot. Yesterday nine boys waded into deep holes washed out by the spring freshets, and were rescued by Caretaker Robinson, who was kept keyed up to the highest notch all day watching the 900 lads who bathed there.
 He reported the matter to Ald. Lamb, and the alderman to-day recommended to City Commissioner Coatsworth that the bathing place be moved about 300 yards further south, where there are no dangerous holes. A screen fence will be erected around the new bathing place, which is rather close to Rosedale Ravine Drive.[1]

---

[1] “Don Bathing Place Changed,” The Toronto Daily Star, Wednesday, July 9, 1902, Page 1.

No Money for Frills

I’m interested in this because it says something about the struggle over extending services for people at the start of the twentieth century. What should a city do? What shouldn’t it do? Who wants to pay?

But, really, not much has changed. This editorial could have been written by on of Toronto’s newspapers (probably not the Star) during the last civic election.

No Money for Frills
It is remarkable that the present time seems to be prolific in schemes and projects for spending civic money on frills, when there is no money for anything but works of absolute necessity. There are bathing places, and omnibus services, free ferry boats, bicycle paths on untraveled streets, and elaborate scheme for a system of channels at the Island, and now, an aquatic course on Ashbridge’s Bay. 

This latter scheme involves extensive improvements on the north shore of the bay, an extension of street railway track of over a mile that citizens may reach the beach, which, of course, would be immediately built up with summer cottages, and made the most popular of all our resorts. The picture is a fascinating one, but the fatal drawback is that it would require money, and a considerable amount of it, too. If those who are so busy evolving these schemes, would come down to common sense for a while, and allow the city to provide every day necessities such as good pavements and clean streets and lanes generally, they would be helping the city along in the way of establishing a good name and reputation for itself, far better than by hamporing it with projects which cannot, however desirable they may be in themselves, be carried out at the present time, for the simple reason that there is no money in the civic treasury for the purpose. 

Let us first provide the essentials for a really great and attractive city.[1]

---

[1] “No Money for Thrills,” The Evening Star, Thursday, June 8, 1899, Page 4.

Frederick Law Olmsted(s) and Toronto

Toronto almost had a Frederick Law Olmsted park to call its own. Well, sort of.

In the nineteenth century Frederick Law Olmsted all but created landscape architecture. Most famous for designing New York’s Central Park in the 1850s he had left his mark on parks, grounds and university campuses across North America. When Montreal was contemplating a design for its Mount Royal Park in the 1870s it had called on Olmsted for his expertise.[1]

So, when the city’s Island Committee was considering a redevelopment of the Toronto Island in March, 1902 Olmsted’s name (well, Olmstead, they kept misspelling it) was top of mind. As the committee noted, the city spent money every year dredging and filling on the island, but lacked any master plan to guide it. They suggested the Assessment Commissioner and Park Commissioner draw one up that would look after the placement of waterways, roadways and bridges. But they added “Your committee, believing that this is a matter that should receive most careful consideration, as it embodies the carrying out of improvements of a permanent character which will last for all time to come, feel that the advice of a first-class landscape architect should be secured on the proposed plan now submitted, and with this end in view, it is strongly recommended that the services of Mr. Frederick Law Olmstead, of New York, be secured to advise with the Assessment Commissioner and Park Commissioner on their plans, and that he be paid the sum of $500 for his services.”[2]

The city’s Board of Control wasn’t buying in and at its March 24, 1902 meeting punted the idea back to the Island Committee for reconsideration. The committee stuck to its guns and continued to push for Olmsted at its March 26 meeting and, after the matter was again sent back by the Board of Control, at its April 9 meeting.[3] The Board of Control still wasn’t biting and denied the request again at its May 5 council meeting. The debate was covered in the Toronto Daily Star which had this say, “The question of employing Mr. Olmstead, the United States landscape artist, in laying out the Island again bobbed up, and Mr. J.T. Small, President of the Island Association, pleaded with the Council not to deny the money. If the Council did so, he, with others who desired to se the Island beautified, would take up a subscription, and bring Mr. Olmstead here.

“The matter resolved into a dispute as to whether or not the employment of an expert would reflect upon the abilities of Park Commissioner Chambers, who, ald. Fleming pointed out, had many times been called out of the city and across the line to give advice upon landscape work, some of which had passed under Mr. Olmstead’s hands.”[4]

Despite the Star’s view that the reputation of the city’s park commissioner might be on the line the reality is that this was probably a money issue. The Island Committee finally accepted the Board of Control’s rejection and in July suggested the park commissioner be given the job and that as part of the task he spend a month touring resorts across North America, including Bell Isle in Detroit. The Board of Control agreed, but cut the month long travel budget down to 15 days and the park commissioner was not to leave town until after the Toronto Industrial Exhibition.[5]

Olmsted was a natural choice for the job and its fun to imagine what Toronto Island would have looked like if he had take a direct hand in its development. But by 1902 there was one problem; even if the city had been willing to foot the bill to bring Olmsted in, he wouldn’t have been able to come.  The landscape architect had retired in 1895 and was in poor health during his remaining years. He died August 28, 1903.[6]

The Island Committee may have known of Olmsted’s retirement and been referring to his son, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. who, with his step-brother John Charles Olmsted had formed Olmsted Brothers in 1898 and were carrying on as landscape architects. Whether they meant Olmstead Jr. or Sr. is never specified, but the reverence with which they speak of the man suggests it was the father. The son, however, would get to leave his stamp on Toronto. The Toronto Harbour Commission used Olmsted Jr. as a consultant on its waterfront development plan in 1912; forever linking the city to the famous name.

The committee wouldn’t be the first or last to mix up father and son; the Globe and Mail did the same thing in a story earlier this year when it referenced the 1912 plan and said, “the legendary landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted proposed a bridge over the Eastern Gap as part of his master plan for the new Toronto Harbour Commission.”[7]

---

[1] Nancy D. Pollock‐Ellwand (2006): The Olmsted firm in Canada: a correction of the

record, Planning Perspectives, 21:3, 277-310. Page 289.

[2] Report No. 4 of the Island Committee, WM Burns, chairman, March 18, 1902, City Council 1902 Appendix A, Page 234, Toronto City Archive.

[3] Report No. 5 of the Island Committee, William Burns, chairman, March 26, 1902, City Council 1902 Appendix A, Page 280, Toronto City Archive. Report No. 5 of the Island Committee, William Burns, chairman, April 9, 1902, City Council 1902 Appendix A, Page 374, Toronto City Archive.

[4] “Tie Vote on a Plea for the Employment of a Foreign Landscape Artist,” The Toronto Daily Star, Tuesday, May 6, 1902, Page 2.

[5] Report No. 6 of the Island Committee, William Burns, chairman, July 9, 1902, City Council 1902 Appendix A, Page 662, Toronto City Archive.

[6] FrederickLawOlmsted.com: A Short Biography http://www.fredericklawolmsted.com/bioframe.htm. See also "F. L Olmsted is Dead; End Comes to Great Landscape Architect at Waverly, Mass. Designer of Central and Prospect Parks and Other Famous Garden Spots of American Cities." New York Times. August 29, 1903.

[7] John Lorinc, “As lineups fester at the ferry docks, the city looks to a solution – slowly,” The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/as-lineups-fester-at-the-ferry-docks-the-city-looks-to-a-solution----slowly/article4381883/

How about that recovery rate?

You have to say this about Toronto's police in 1900, they had a great closure rate when it came to recovering stolen bikes:

Annual report of the chief constable for the year 1900

Jan 26, 1901

Bicycle stealing

“Carelessness or indifference caused the owners of 875 wheels, valued at $10,072 to lose the, temporarily in most cases, as 803 were recovered.”

H.J. Grasett, chief constable

The police report included the chief constable's thoughts on a number of law-enforcement issues facing the city, and a tally of crimes committed and accidental deaths within the city. Some 18 people drowned in 1900 and one unfortunate resident met their death "from effects of stab in the eye with an umbrella."

Toronto City Council 1901 Appendix C, Page 29

Toronto City Archives

There is no water frontage for children to play on; it will be built up for the purposes of commerce

The City of Toronto and the Canadian Pacific Railway scrapped over the rail company’s efforts to expropriate a wide portion of Toronto’s waterfront in the late 1880s and early 1890s. The ability to expropriate land they deemed necessary for their operations had been granted to the rail companies under Canada’s Railway Act. The disagreement between the City of Toronto and the CPR went to the federal Railway Committee of the Privy Council in 1890 and the two sides argued their cases over a series of meetings.

Counsel for the CPR G. M. Clark had this to say on Sept. 19, 1890 at a meeting that included representatives of the rail company, such as President William Van Horne, the city, and Sir John A. MacDonald:

“Mr. Clark—Of course we could not do without the water frontage in either place. In speaking of that water frontage I have to make one more remark. In the discussion before the Railway Committee on different occasions people have spoken of the water frontage of the Bay, of what a great deprivation it would be to the people of the City of Toronto if they were to lose the water frontage. Mr. Glockling I think it was, spoke of it as being the lung of the City. Now that is an entire fallacy. There is no water frontage owned by the City. They have lost every inch of it so that there may be wharves. They have used the water frontage themselves so that they can get an income from it. There is no shore there that children can play upon and gather pebbles. You know what kind of water the Bay of Toronto is and is likely to be. The water frontage that they have is a water frontage for the purpose of getting an income from it. The water front in the mind of Mr. Glockling and others who think with him was the means of getting to down the streets, the means of access to the water of the Bay. It was not the water frontage. I say the water frontage has gone, gone for a very proper purpose, to make an income from it. To talk of a water front is apt to mislead. There is no water frontage for children to play on; it will be built up for the purposes of commerce.”

City Council Appendix, 1890, 1133 (Page 1897)

Vagrant bands must be dealt with

To chairman of the board of police commissioners, Jan 14, 1890

Chief Constable’s Office

Jan 14, 1890

Vagrant Bands

"Vagrant Bands parading the streets at night have given the police a good deal of trouble, composed, as they are, of rowdy youths belonging to no responsible Society or organization. They play party tunes for the distinct purpose of being offensive, and with the object of causing a disturbance. They are usually accompanied by a rabble who are always glad of an opportunity to throw stones, the damage from which might be serious, and a breach of the peace is always imminent. The police cannot be on the spot at all times, not being aware of the movements of the bands before hand. I would recommend the passage of a By-Law making it obligatory upon all bands (military excepted) to obtain a permit to play through the streets after sun-down."

From H. J. Grasett, chief constable

City Council Appendix, 1990, 4

Rules of the ride

Some of these still hold true and some ... do not. (Saturday, June 15, 1895 Toronto Evening Star, P7)