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)