The Notorious Brooks’ Bush Gang

Note: This is Part I of a two-part series about the history of the Brook’s Bush Gang. You can read Part II here.

From the 1850s to the early 1860s, the east end of Toronto on both sides of the Don River was terrorized by the criminal dealings of the infamous Brook’s Bush Gang, a mix-gendered gang of desperadoes and thieves. The history of the group is an interesting, rare, and dangerous chapter in Toronto history.

“A Batch of Disorderlies”

In January 1855, Sergeant McCaffrey received some information that the eastern end of the city “was infested by a number of depraved young females who lived more like brutes than human beings.” He proceeded to the place known as “Brook’s bush” and found a gang of “unfortunates” living in an “Indian hut” made of several layers of large pines, “rudely thrown together and a cavity preserved in the centred by upright poles and cross pieces”. They were huddled around a fire. He found a large pot, some bread, some herrings, and a jar of whiskey. There were some men and the females were a “motley group”, with one having a “contusion on her nose” and two with black eyes. The others had scratches and scars. The Sergeant brought them before the bar and charged them with “living disorderly, good-for-nothing lives”. McCaffrey noted the group’s experience ranged from twelve or thirteen years old to about twenty years old. The men — four of them — were fined 10s. each and the seven women received gaol (jail) time of a month each.

In August 1856, The Globe described the locality of Brook’s Bush as “being infected with a horde of the most dangerous characters of both sexes, and has become such a ‘prodigious public nuisance’ that coercive means must be adopted to rid the place of the gang of plunderers, from whom life nor property are safe.” William Davis, a councillor who owned property in the bush, lodged a complaint and five persons of each sex — “the lowest of the low” — were arrested.

These two accounts are telling representations of who the Brooks Bush Gang were and their miscreant dealings in the mid-19th century. The gang would go on to have multiple shady episodes culminating in their alleged involvement in a high-profile murder.

Many fundamental details about the Brook’s Bush Gang are unclear, such its origins, nature, and size, and structure. One can infer Sergeant McCaffrey’s account in early 1855 that the group was set up in the area at least in the year prior and perhaps had already had a reputation with the police for them to warrant a visit resulting in being taken into custody, fined, and sent to prison. Their shabby living conditions also suggests their lower-class status. It is not clear what work the members did, if any. The size of the group is also difficult to measure. In some accounts eleven or twelve members of the group are arrested at one time. The roster of characters also likely changed as members exited the group, most prominently from going to jail. The newspaper note at least seventy individuals part of or affiliated with the gang at some point between 1856 to 1861.

Where was Brook’s Bush?

Brook‘s Bush, the home base of the dangerous group, was located on the east side of the Don River. Jennifer Bonnell, a historian on the Don River, wrote the east end of Toronto in the 19th century was a place for the undesirables, so it offered the conditions for a miscreant group like the Brooks Bush Gang to exist. The community now known as Riverdale was not annexed to Toronto until the 1880s and police enforcement of the group and area was a difficult because of this reason.

In an August 1931 issue of Maclean’s, Brook’s Bush is described as a forty-acre woodlot with a clearing in the middle and an abandoned barn where the group’s headquarters were located. Toronto environmentalist Charles Sauriol similarly described the Brook’s Bush as a “forty acre heavily-wooded area, just east of the Don River.” He also cited an ‘old-timer’ in saying the area “above Winchester” was the “territory where gambling, cock-fighting, and bull pitting flourished.” There is some dispute over the bush’s exact location and its size.

Bonnell stated both Maclean’s and Sauriol placed the bush north of the Don Jail. However, maps may lead us to a different conclusion. She cited the 1860 and 1878 County Atlases of York in stating that bush was on the property of a Daniel Brook. The identity and history of Brook are vague and confusing, highlighted by the fact that there are at least three different spellings of his name to refer to him, the bush, and the gang. Scarborough historian David Boyle published in his The Township of Scarboro, 1796-1896 that a Captain Daniel Brooke “owned the bush in York township which, in after years, formed a rendezvous for the notorious ‘Brooke’s Bush Gang'”. According to maps, Brook owned at least two properties east of the Don River in 1860. The first was a 10-acre property found directly east of the Don Jail, bordering on the west side of Logan Avenue just north of Gerrard Street. It appears in the 1860 map as “D.B.” but is later labelled in the 1878 map as Daniel Brook. The northern property is slightly more confusing. In the 1860 map, “D.B.” appears again on the east side of Logan, north of today’s Bain Avenue. It was about 10 acres. In the 1878 map, this property is attributed to George Vincent; however, two lots totaling 20 acres north of it are found under Daniel Brooks. Bonnell stated local historians have corroborated the location of Brook’s Bush on the modern site of Withrow Park.

There is evidence to support both Brook’s Bush location hypotheses — that is, whether it was located east of the Don Jail or on the site of Withrow Park. In his 1908 Landmarks of Toronto Volume V, storied Toronto historian John Ross Robertson wrote about the Butchers’ Arms Tavern, which was located on Broadview Avenue between Sparkhall and Hogarth Avenues. Robertson stated the establishment was a gaming bar, both for cockfighting and betting men who came from the nearby racetrack south of Queen Street near the Don River. He also wrote it attracted more “objectionable characters of the notorious ‘Brooks Bush gang”. According to Ross, the gang’s headquarters were “a short distance to the east.” Indeed, at its shortest length, the Butchers’ Arms and The Bush is about 600 metres and corresponds to the Withrow Park area.

In 1912, The Globe reported the Butchers’ Arms was being torn down to accommodate new housing. The tavern was described here as the rendezvous of the notorious Brooks’ Bush Gang of highway robbers and murderers. John Playter of Danforth Avenue (and of the modern Playter Estates), the great-grandson of early York settler Captain John Playter, relayed the history of the tavern and the gang to the newspaper. He remembered them as a group of “low class men and women” who were “called the Brooks’ Bush gang because they camped in the bush owned by Mr. Brooks near the thoroughfare now known as Simpson Avenue”. Mr. Playter’s description seems to corresponds to the southern Brooks lot close to Gerrard and east of the Don Jail. The property was roughly bordered by Simpson Avenue, Langley Avenue, Howland Road, and Logan Avenue. To add a layer, Simpson Avenue between Howland and Logan was named Brooke Avenue; it was renamed to Simpson by 1910.

The 1856 murder of Isaiah Sewell may offer some geographic details which might clear things up. As Leslieville historian Joanne Doucette wrote, the Sewells lived near Queen Street and Logan Avenue (Logan itself was Sewell’s Lane for a time). On the day of the murder, Sewell was to travel to Broadview Avenue to purchase some hay. William Rhodes, a witness who lived about twenty acres from the Sewells, mentioned to go from the Sewell’s at Queen and Logan to Broadview that “it would not be the nearest road to go through Brook’s Bush”. He also stated Sewell was no more than twenty acres away from the bush when he was found dead. On that day, Rhodes was returning back from Toronto when crossed the Grand Trunk railway (now the Canadian National railway) track north of Queen Street and was near the “edge of the bush” when he saw a crowd. When he went to investigate, he was told by one of the members Sewell was killed, at which point Rhodes went to Sewell as he knew the boy. Another witness, Andrew Jenkins of the gang, first saw Sewell standing near the railway track about 40 yards near some women of the gang. Sewell went to go talk to Catherine Cogan when he was struck and killed from behind. Cogan stated she went to the creek after he was struck to get water to bather his forehead and breast. There are other depositions of gang members going for water at the time of the murder.

The geography of the murder suggested Sewell was murdered near the Grand Trunk Railway where it crossed Logan Avenue. This was on the edge of Brook’s Bush, likely within 20 acres of it as suggested by Rhodes’ account. Taking the two locations, the distance was roughly 15 acres for the southern Brook property and roughly 35-acres for the northern property. In regards to the creek accessed by the gang, according to Lost Rivers Toronto, the Holly Brook Creek meandered east and west of Logan Avenue north of the railway. A longer branch flowed east of Logan, including in the northern Brooks lot in Withrow Park where its physical indent is perhaps most visible. It had smaller branches flowing northwest from Logan toward Simpson and Howland in the southern Brook lot.

Perhaps the matter is settled most in an April 1861 Globe article covering the John Sheridan Hogan murder trial. The trial itself shown a lot of light on the gang. The newspaper noted that police reports had appeared on averaged once a week for the last four years on the Brooke’s bush gang, but the exact locality was never actually known. The newspaper said:

Brooke’s Bush was one of ten lots selected by well-known citizens at the time Toronto was incorporated. The other two lots have been cleared but there was still a lot of Brooke’s Bush to be cleared. It is beautiful situated east of the Don, and about a quarter due mile east of from the Industrial Farm and New Gaol. The trees afford good shelter to the “gang” who have made it their place of resort. In the winter they take take possession of a dilapidated barn which stands on the adjoined lot — there being no building whatever on the lot known as “Brooke’s Bush” — and of an old stable in the rear of a brewery which was built near the place a few years ago since the owner of which gave up building some time ago.
The Globe, April 8, 1861

It is also possible, as Doucette has pointed out, that both properties were part of the bush and they operated as a sort of region. In March 1859, a collector advertised in The Globe the sale of cordwood and timber at Oxleys’ Tavern on Queen Street “for arrears of taxes due on the property commonly known as Brook’s Bush, situated and lying in School Section No. 6, in the Township of York East.”

The Women of Brook’s Bush

A fascinating dimension to the Brook’s Bush Gang is the presence, nature, and involvement of women in a very visible way. It is not clear why so many women found themselves in the gang or what were their origins and circumstances. It is, however, apparent that women played a noted role in the history of the Brook’s Bush Gang.

There have been general descriptions of the group as a band of desperado, thieves, and prostitutes. The focus on the latter as an identity and behaviour for women is a curious topic. Jane Ward and Catherine Cogan, particularly the latter, might have been acting in those roles in the murder of Isaiah Sewell. Joanne Doucette wrote Jane Ward was “a vicious English prostitute” and was known as the “The Bandit Queen of Riverdale”. She was born in Yorkshire and came to Canada at age 4. By 1861, she was about 25 years old; and she was “seduced from the paths of virtue”, right around the time she left her parents’ care and joined the Brook’s Bush Gang”. She was described as “a small and rather sharp-featured woman” in one account, but tall, well-made, and a “regular” appearance with marks on her face in another. She was “very passionate and vindictive” and long ruled the members of the gang, suggesting she had a prominent placement in the group, if not actually leading it. After her time in the gang, she was noted as having two self-indulges: tobacco and cheap whiskey. In fact, “she was rarely seen in public without a pipe in her lips, and trailing a haze of smoke from the cheapest and strongest tobacco she could find.”

Ward and another prostitute Ellen McGillick engaged MPP John Sheridan Hogan before murdering him in December 1859. McGillick was described in the MacLean’s article about the murder by W. Stewart Wallace:

“Though only twenty-three years of age, she had been “on the street” for four years; and had, prior to that period, been married and deserted by her husband. She was a tall, strapping girl, and would have been attractive had her face not been scarred by smallpox. She had often been in the police court, but the police magistrate afterward testified that he had always found her frank and truthful. She had sunk so low, perchance, that the only way she could keep her selfrespect was by telling the truth.”
Maclean’s Magazine, August 15, 1931

In April of 1859, another woman of the gang named “Yankee Mary”, described as “of frail character”, accosted a retired militia man with her seductive words. It is unclear if she herself was a prostitute, but they bought some spirits and he followed her to the east end. He woke up without clothes and without his possessions, namely his watch, stock, hat, and wallet with a few dollars contained it it. Mary was tracked to the Brook’s Bush and found with a man named Wagstaff. They were searched and arrested after the soldier’s items were located.

Following this, women of the Brook’s Bush Gang seemed to have played important roles in the gang’s crimes, even committing them themselves. In February 1859, a woman was stopped on the Queen Street (then Kingston Road) between the Don River and the first toll gate and stripped of her shawl and other articles. Three women were the attackers, whose refuge was said to be the “notorious locality”, called Brooks’ Bush. The Globe noted travellers dread passing on the road as of late, which was “feared with thieves”. In the gang’s two connected murders, women played active roles. In the Sewell case, in addition to engaging with the man, Cogan picked up a piece of newspaper with the man’s money, which Ward then had her possession and said she would return to the authorities. It is unclear if the money ever was returned. As noted, Ward and McGillick also played roles in the murder of Hogan, engaging with the MPP on the Don Bridge and with Ward robbing him.

Finally, there is also an interesting and repeated allusion to female gang members as “abandoned” individuals in the records. Susan McCormack and Mary A. Walton were described as such when they were charged by the police in August 1857. In December 1857, Sergeant Smith found a mother lying in little hay and snow and rain with her dead infant in her arm with no covering. The mother, Bridget McGuire and her baby, was brought to City Hall Station and then the Hospital. The child died from the cold. McGuire was described as a woman of “abandoned character.” In June 1858, a similar story occurred as another abandoned woman Mary Ann Walton had given birth in Brook’s Bush but “the infant had not been seen for some time” and it was thought it had been “foully dealt with”. It is unclear what an “abandoned woman” directly entails, but one can infer these women lacked familial ties, were vagrants and homeless, and/or prostitutes. It is worth mentioning the bush was “known was the resort of abandoned characters, and has been more than once the scene of robberies and outrages”, which means the term may not have been exclusive to women.

The Isaiah Sewell Murder

In July 1856, The Globe reported the murder of a Isaiah Sewell, a “coloured boy”. Michael Barry was identified as the killer and he was tried for murder in the following montj. Barry was at Brook’s Bush on the day of the murder, but he did not seem to have been part of the group officially. Sewell lived on Kingston Road (today’s Queen Street) near the Don River and was sent to Mill Road (Broadview Avenue) by his father with 10 pounds to buy hay. Instead, he found himself at or near the bush which was not the most direct path to his destination. Sewell was not part of the gang.

Sewell was standing near the Grand Trunk Railroad tracks when he was then engaged by Catherine Cogan of the Brook’s Bush Gang. Someone present recalled hearing that “it was a shame for a white girl to be seen with a black man”; it is not known who uttered the words. The party had been drinking and Sewell gave Cogan money for a drink. Cogan had spoken to Sewell for about 5 minutes. Barry then came from behind Sewell and cracked his skull with a glass bottle. As he did, he called him a “black b–g-r” and told him to go away. Barry also said “he [Sewell] was scheming” and would kick him to make him leave. After the strike, Sewell turned or was turned onto his back. Cogan picked up a piece of newspaper and money which had fallen from Sewell. A passer-byer investigating the murder later got the money from Jane Ward but he only counted it and Ward would return it to the authorities. Several members went to the creek for water and Sewell’s hands or face was washed. Some of the gang claimed they did not see the blow and did not know Barry or Sewell. A doctor confirmed Sewell died from the blow from a “concussion of the brain”. Barry was tried in October 1856 for Sewell’s willful murder and found guilty of manslaughter.

Looking north on Logan Avenue south of the Grand Trunk Railway, 1890s. The Sewell murder may have taken place near here nearly fourty years before.
Source: City of Toronto Archives

Historian Joanne Doucette contextualized the murder in social terms. It was the first racially-motivated murder in Toronto and possibly Ontario. The Sewells were Black gardeners and landowners in Leslieville. Part of Logan Avenue was for a time named “Sewell’s Lane”. The family was part of Leslieville’s Black community in the 19th century. Doucette described the Brook’s Bush Gang as “all white, mostly Irish”. The gangs way of operating was to ply a victim with alcohol, lure him with sex, and then rob him. Doucette also noted the gang boasted for years about the murder. Barry allowed the group to take the fall for the murder as a affiliate of the gang. None of the members were directly implicated for the murder as no one ever claimed direct involvement.

The Sewell case was an extreme case of the capabilities of the Brook’s Bush Gang. At the same time, it was a precursor to their activities over the next five or six years, which included at least one more high profile murder.

Free Parking & Free Cokes: A&P Super Markets in 1950s Suburban Toronto

A&P is part of Toronto’s retail history, especially so because the franchise does not exist anymore in the city.

In the 1950s, the American-based company, formally called the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., opened several new super markets in Toronto’s outer communities. These stores and their eventful inaugurations offer a lens into not only the history of the brand, but also the emergence and evolution of Toronto’s inner suburbs.

5559 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke

The A&P at 5559 Dundas Street West at Brown’s Line opened on July 8, 1952. As the advertisement notes, it opened at the junction of two highways: Five (Dundas) and Twenty-Seven (Brown’s Line). It also backed onto a Canadian Pacific rail line. At the time of its opening, the intersection was sparsely populated. The larger community at the western edge of the Toronto area was Eatonville, best known for being the farming property of its namesake family and department store barons, the Eatons.

Very much in line with other store inaugurations in the period, the A&P advertisement presented the event as a multi-day spectacle. It was broadcasted over radio, with American singer and radio personality Smilin’ Jack Smith hosting. The famed 48th Highlanders band also played. The opening day flyer touts the supermarket as a “Parking Heaven” with plenty free parking. A map also boasted that “all roads” led to the supermarket, noting all the local major roads and the connecting communities. Many cars and people are depicted, including a long line filing towards and into the large glass store entrance. Altogether, it is very optimistic, with new life and new development now existing outside Toronto’s historic busy core.

The Globe and Mail reported the new super market cost $1,000,000 and included a warehouse building and a rail siding. It wrote: “The huge one-story structure provides consumers with the ultimate in shopping conveniences and affords the company the latest facilities for the efficient distribution of groceries in Ontario.”

By the end of the decade, the area had transformed along with the new store. Brown’s Line and Highway 27 were absorbed by the new Highway 427. The new interchange with Dundas resembled a cloverleaf. This development may have inspired the naming of the adjacent Cloverdale Mall directly across from A&P in 1956, an open air shopping centre whose anchor was another super market, Dominion.

Since 1952, the Dundas Street A&P has undergone a few noted changes. First, it is now Food Basics, which was founded in 1995 as a discount super market subsidiary under the A&P brand. Second, the complex’s area expanded, including an office space. This office is the Metro Ontario Division headquarters. Metro, a Quebec super market chain, acquired A&P Canada in 2005. Interestingly, at the Cloverdale Mall across the street, Dominion was acquired by A&P in the 1980s; the store is now a Metro.

25 Glen Watford Drive, Scarborough

The A&P at 25 Glen Watford Drive at Sheppard Avenue opened on March 21, 1957. It served the historic village of Agincourt, a community with roots in the 19th century whose nexus was the crossroads of Church Street (Midland Avenue) and Lansing Road (Sheppard Avenue). First Street, depicted in the advertisement’s map, was part of an Edwardian residential subdivision. In the 1950s, the community opened its earliest post-war subdivision east of the Agincourt High School. In 1959, bus service ran from Kennedy Road to Sheppard Avenue, looping at Glen Watford, Rural Avenue, and Midland; it was one of the first to serve northern Scarborough.

Like the Dundas Street store, the store opening was a week-long affair. It featured giveaways to shoppers, and a radio broadcast, featuring Scarborough Board of Health Officer and Agincourt resident, C.D. Farquharson. Free parking and parcel pickups were emphasized. Nearly thirty stores in Toronto and area were listed, some with details such as having air conditioning.

The evolution of the area around 25 Glen Watford contains some interesting developments. By the 1960s, Lansing Road became Sheppard Avenue; and Church Street merged with Midland Avenue to the south. First Avenue also became Agincourt Avenue. In 1963, the CP crossing on Sheppard was replaced by a rail overpass; the tracks were temporarily rerouted north during construction. Sheppard Avenue was also widened and Glen Watford was rerouted to curve towards Sheppard.

In the late 1970s, the Glen Watford A&P was torn down. In its place, a strip mall was erected. A larger building also went up to the south, taking up space formerly occupied by properties on the north side of Sheppard removed in the improvements along the street the decade prior. This latter building was a roller rink called Roller World.

In the mid-1980s, the area experienced its greatest evolution. In 1984, Hong Kong born developers bought the roller rink and transformed it into the Dragon Centre, an indoor Chinese mall (the former rink became a circular walkway for shoppers). It was the first of its kind in Toronto and Canada. The development spurred a change in Agincourt and Scarborough’s demographics, bringing East Asian residents and businesses to the area, including the strip mall to the north which replaced the A&P and the Glen Watford Plaza across the street, today’s Dynasty Centre.

The Dragon Centre wasn’t without controversy in the early years, however. Residents complained about the planning of the mall, particularly the parking and gridlock. There were also racist, xenophobic sentiments. Still, the mall endured, becoming a fixture in Agincourt.

Today, the East Asian nexus on Glen Watford is set to endure another change. A development proposal has two condominium buildings to be erected on the site. A project entitled “Dragon Centre Stories” exists to preserve the memory of the places set to be replaced.

2939 Dufferin Street, North York

The A&P at 2939 Dufferin Street south of Lawrence Avenue opened on March 11, 1958. After WWII, Dufferin north of Eglinton Avenue filled out as an arterial street with commercial and industrial uses, and its surrounding residential streets with bungalows, schools, and churches. The Dufferin Street A&P backed onto Barker Stream, a tributary of Castle Frank Brook.

Like the other A&P stores, the opening of the Dufferin store featured contests and giveaways, including “free Cokes for everyone!” It also praised its car-friendly qualities: a giant parking lot, parcel pickup, and “all roads in North West Toronto” led to it. This automobile haven was in the immediately geography too; directly next to the A&P was a drive-in ice cream spot, Tastee Freez. An archival image of the Dufferin A&P offers a comparison with the image in the 1958 ad; the stores are very similar with a noted difference being the positioning of the logo’d tower.

Today, the A&P store is a Lady York Foods, an Italian grocery store. A Dairy Queen is now on the same lot as the former The Tastee Freez. The transformation to Lady York Foods is particularly intriguing because it represents the general shift in demographics in the Dufferin-Lawrence area: The community is largely Italian-speaking.

Do you remember these three A&P super markets or any other early A&P stores? Leave a comment below!

Sources Consulted

Bradburn, Jamie. “Vintage Toronto Ads: Fabulous Cloverdale Mall.” Torontoist, 19 Nov. 2014, https://torontoist.com/2014/11/vintage-toronto-ads-fabulous-cloverdale-mall/.

2016 Neighbourhood Profile Neighbourhood Yorkdale-Glen Park. https://www.toronto.ca/ext/sdfa/Neighbourhood%20Profiles/pdf/2016/pdf1/cpa55.pdf.

“25 Glen Watford Drive – Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Applications – Request for Direction Report.” City of Toronto.

“Eatonville.” Etobicoke Historical Society, https://www.etobicokehistorical.com/eatonville.html.

“Open $1,000,000 Super Market.” The Globe and Mail, July 11, 1952, p. 20.

“Roller Rinks and Magnetic Tapes.” Roller Rinks and Magnetic Tapes : Dragon Centre Stories, https://dragoncentrestories.ca/stories/roller-rinks-and-magnetic-tapes/.

Strauss, Marina and Gordon Pitts. “Grocery” Metro Musles into Ontario, winning A&P Canada bid.” The Globe and Mail, July 20, 2003, p. B1.

The Curious Evolution of Riverdale Avenue, Toronto

Riverdale Avenue is located in the namesake neighbourhood of Riverdale, an area in the east end of the old city of Toronto. Found a short distance north of Gerrard Street East, the street runs about a kilometre between Broadview Avenue and Kiswick Street (between Pape Avenue and Jones Street). Riverdale Avenue is layered in its development with lost and gained extensions, buried waterways, and disappearing transit lines.

Origins

Riverdale Avenue was historically located on lot 14, a 200-acre parcel granted by John Graves Simcoe to John Cox in 1796. It was situated roughly between Broadview Avenue to just west of Logan Avenue, south of Danforth Avenue to the lake. The John Cox cottage, built before 1807 and currently the oldest home in Toronto still used as a residence, sits on the property.

By 1815, the lot passed on to William Smith, which was then subdivided to his heirs in 1839. The 1860 Tremaine’s Map shows the property attributed to Thomas S. Smith. By 1878, the Illustrated Atlas of York County shows the property was divided further: the bottom two-thirds went to B. Langley (possibly for the namesake street currently on the street) and a road with smaller lots. The atlas shows the community around the lots was Don Mount and a post office was located at today’s Queen and Broadview.

In the 1884 Goad’s Map, the street in 1878 had a name: Smith. It is also labelled as Plan 373. The street stopped at the lot line, roughly two thirds to Logan Avenue. Also in 1884, Don Mount, now going by Riverside, and the lands east to Greenwood Avenue were annexed by the City of Toronto.

By the 1890s, Smith Street was extended into Lot 13. Between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, only the north side of the street was built as the south side constituted part of the William Harris Estate. The property also had a part of Holly Brook, also known as Heward Creek, running through it, which may or may not have impacted its later development.

Smith was also interrupted at Carlaw by another section of the Harris Property. A house now with a street address of 450 Pape Avenue was built on the lot in 1902, now known as the William Harris/Cranfield House. On the other end of the property at Pape, Smith Street continued in a separate section until MacDonald Street, now Kiswick Street.

The Lost Riverdale Avenue

In August 1887, the Board of Works recommended the opening of new street, free of cost to the city opposite Smith Street on the other side of Broadview Avenue; this was the first Riverdale Avenue.

The new street was proposed to run “…from Broadview Avenue to a connection with a street leading westerly through Riverdale Park to a new 50 feet street on the east side of the new line of the Don River, giving a connection with Winchester street at the bridge…”. In September, the motion to open the street was passed. It was surveyed with lots and appeared on maps in the 1880s and 90s. The 1895 City of Toronto Directory shows “a lane”, possibly referring to Riverdale Avenue, listed under 380 Broadview Avenue. The address also hosted six residents, Riverside Park (seemingly used interchangibly with Riverdale Park), Isolation Hospital, and Vacant Lots.

In 1903, a by-law was inexplicably passed to close the street. Interestingly, in April 1904, Riverdale residents complained “bitterly of the odors” in Riverdale Park from the burning of garbage in the park’s dump “on the extension of Smith Street”. It is unclear if this was Riverdale Avenue, but the street did not appear on maps for much longer after 1903. Riverdale Park was a garbage dump from around the turn on the century to the 1920s; green pipes found today on the property are exhaust tubes for methane.

A New Riverdale Avenue

In the first decade of the 1900s, ‘Riverdale’ came into common use to refer to the neighbourhood. Riverdale Park itself was used since the late 1870s and the park was officially opened 1880, so the neighbourhood was seemingly named after the park, rather than the more obvious reverse. In 1905, Smith Street from Broadview Avenue to Carlaw Avenue was renamed to Riverdale Avenue, taking over the name of the closed street it was once connected to. East of Pape, the road was still Smith Street. A confused rider of the streetcar on Broadview wrote to The Star in 1906 asking about the renaming as some trolley drivers still referred to the street as Smith, while other drivers used the new name. The newspaper set the record straight: west of the intervening Harris property, the street was Riverdale; east of it was Smith Street.

By 1913, the south side of Riverdale between Logan and Pape, part of the Harris Estate, was subdivided under plan 445E. The move allowed for the extensions of Langley Avenue, Victor Avenue, and Simpson Avenue across to Carlaw. The circumstances surrounding this development are unclear, but the branch of Heward Creek/Holly Brook which ran diagonally through the lot stopped appearing on Toronto maps around this time according to Lost Rivers Toronto. Leslieville Creek, which ran through Smith Street, was also potentially buried in the 1910s.

In 1922, Riverdale Avenue was finally extended into the remaining Harris Estate east of Carlaw. The property was subdivided into lots under Plan 587E; some of it became the yard for Pape Avenue School. It was also one of the few remaining tracts left in Riverdale as most of the district by then had been subdivided and redeveloped. Growth in North Riverdale was aided by the opening of The Prince Edward Viaduct in 1918.

The extension was instrumental in Toronto’s transit expansion: it provided a key east-west link for a streetcar line on Pape and Carlaw in an growing, under-served part of the city. Langley Avenue was considered in the role in during World War I, but the idea was rejected by residents as it passed by the school; it even got as far as putting up trolley poles before the plan was nixed. The Globe reported in December 1922 that even with the line, development had yet to come to street. Even though water and sewer lines were passed on the street, there were no sidewalks and only pavement for the tracks. In effect, the corridor was a streetcar right of way. This sparse development would be rectified in short time as the 1924 Goad’s Map shows a very built-on Riverdale Avenue.

The tram line was eventually absorbed into the Harbord car and followed a winding route through Toronto’s west, central, and east areas. The line closed in 1966 and its tracks were removed. Finally, Riverdale Avenue was completed with the disconnected section of Smith Street from Pape to Kiswick being absorbed by and renamed to Riverdale around 1926. Ahead of its renaming, The Daily Star provided some funny commentary.

Toronto Daily Star, April 28, 1924. Source: Toronto Star Archives

The Three Riverdale Avenues

Today, Riverdale Avenue can be thought of in three sections based on their histories and geographies: Broadview-Carlaw, Carlaw-Pape, and Pape-Kiswick. Each have distinct visual differences and vibes which point to their layered development.

The western and oldest part of the street between Broadview and Carlaw is narrow, accommodating only eastbound, local traffic. Trees hang over the road in several spots making for a quaint stroll. It boasts houses mostly dating from the 1880s to the 1910s with oldest homes located on its north side near Broadview — the old Lot 14 — including two heritage homes: 1885 William Jefferies House and 1890-91 John Vick House. The south side between Logan and Carlaw as the ‘youngest’ with mostly 1910s constructions.

Riverdale between Carlaw and Pape makes up the avenue’s ‘newest’ and busiest section. The houses lining the street are semi-detached bungalows built in the 1920s. Whereas Broadview-Carlaw is a local road, this central section is more of a through street with four lanes at its widest to accommodate parking, heavier traffic, and public transit, such as the Pape bus and its predecessor Harbord streetcar. Travellers coming from Broadview or Logan might note how Riverdale ‘opens up’ at Carlaw with its larger road surface and fewer trees. They would also see how this middle section is slightly misaligned with the rest of the avenue because of its width.

Finally, from Pape to Kiswick, the street mixes the qualities of the other two sections. It offers two-way traffic like the Carlaw-Pape section to the west, but is narrow like Broadview to Carlaw. The residences themselves are mostly Edwardian detached and semi-detached homes from the 1910s and 1920s, offering a middle ground in age in the three sections.

Works Consulted

“The Harbord Streetcar (Deceased)” Transit Toronto. https://transittoronto.ca/streetcar/4118.shtml.

Heritage Property Research and Evaluation Report – Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-80237.pdf.

Leslieville Historical Society. “19th Century East End Villages: Donmount, Riverside, Leslieville, Norway.” Leslieville Historical Society, 13 Nov. 2017, https://leslievillehistory.com/2017/11/13/19th-century-east-end-villages-donmount-riverside-leslieville-norway/.

Lost Rivers of Toronto Map, https://www.lostrivers.ca/disappearing.html.

Marshall, Sean. “Hallam Street and the Harbord Streetcar.” Sean Marshall, 4 Feb. 2017, https://seanmarshall.ca/2017/02/03/hallam-street-and-the-harbord-streetcar/.

Muir, Elizabeth Gillan. Riverdale: East of the Don. Dundurn, 2014.

“Riverdale Heritage Conservation District Plan Phase 1.” Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-14121.pdf.

ward14bikes. “Lost Rivers of East Toronto Mark Possible Canals on the Port Lands; Connect the City to the Lake.” Ward 14 Bikes, 8 Dec. 2019, https://ward14bikes.home.blog/2015/04/14/lost-rivers-of-east-toronto-mark-possible-canals-on-the-port-lands-connect-the-city-to-the-lake/.

Wilson, John. “The Lost Rivers Project: The Case of Holly Brook” Geohistory-Géohistoire Canada, 20 Mar. 2017, http://geohist.ca/2017/03/lost-rivers-holly-brook/.

How The Sheraton Centre In Toronto Was Built

Note: This article is the second piece in a two-part series. The first can be found here.

In the 1960s, Toronto had a big question to address: “What would replace the commercial section across The New City Hall?” What followed was action to remove the Queen Street shops between Bay and York Streets and replace them with a complementary project worthy of the new civic centre.

The Expropriation Question

As Toronto entered the 1960s, progress on the Queen Street question seemed slow. In October 1960, there were reports that demolition would begin in the autumn of 1961 or spring of 1962 on the “seedy” south side. The Planning Board was preparing an invitation to attract private developers to redo the site. However, in May 1962, this draft invitation was presented to city council for approval. City Council now had the estimate down to $6,250,000 to buy the properties, but the The Globe and Mail anticipated difficult negotiations with property owners, particularly with the Municipal Hotel and Casino Theatre, who where the largest land owners on the block. The city approved a motion to start expropriating properties, but it was unclear whether this was a path to be taken.

For the Municipal Hotel, owner Arthur Mintz was not going along with city plans to redevelop his property. He had his own project: a three million dollar, 14-storey office tower to replace the hotel. Mintz’ hotel was key in building an office tower at Queen and Bay, but the owner was not going to sell at even a reasonable price to a developer, instead opting to go at it alone. A by-law was passed indicating that whatever new development went through on Queen, the ends of the strip would have towers while the middle would be lower so not to “spoil the view” of the new city hall. The holdup? Owners of these central lots were unwilling to sell. The Daily Star’s editorial section and others advocated for expropriation.

Redevelopment

On August 12, 1964, Toronto City Council voted 17-4 to expropriate most of the block bounded by Queen, Richmond, Bay, and York Streets. Mayor Phillip Givens, a pro-development politician, was a large proponent of the expropriation option and the redevelopment of Queen Street as a whole. It was the first time in Toronto history in which the city opted to expropriate land to sell to private interests rather than execute a public project. Development Commissioner Walter Manthorpe warned that renewal was still another 10 years away with steps needing to be taken to take seek Ontario Municipal Board approval for the expropriation, take possession of the properties, demolish them, sell to developers, and come up with a redevelopment plan for the province’s approval. Proposals started to come in which would the potential form the site and Queen Street in general would take, including an interesting plan which would see a tunnel under Queen and the surface turned into a pedestrian mall between Yonge and University.

Much like the civic centre on the north side of Queen, the city decided to hold a design competition for the block leftover by the soon-to-be expropriated and demolished shops. The eastern end of the block would not be part of the project. In November 1964, Mintz sold the Municipal Hotel to a private developer, Reuben Dennis. The other properties included the Victory Building on Richmond St., the Temple and Dominion Bank Buildings on Bay St., and the Hamilton Trust property on Queen Street, the latter of which suffered a fire in 1963 and which Dennis also bought.

On September 13, 1965, the new City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square was revealed to Torontonians. The winning space-aged design by Finnish architect Viljo Revell consisted of two curved towers of differing heights, a central ‘oyster’ housing the council chamber, and a large open space with a wading pool, arches, public art, and a podium.

79-83 Queen Street West, showing Harry’s Men’s Shop and Vanguard Bookstore in the Frankel Building, and Lawrence Credit Jewellers on the west side of the Broadway Theatre, 1965.
Source: City of Toronto Archives

Across the street, there were some empty storefronts and vacant lots. For the shops that remained, there were ‘expropriation sale’ signs. By the next year, most of the block was razed to the ground and replaced by a level surface of sod and sidewalk.

In 1968, a mini-saga began in who would receive the rights to redevelop the property, which council was to rent out to the winning developer for 99 years. In April 1968, City Council approved a proposal which would see Third Generation Realty Limited build a $50-million hotel-convention centre on the three-and-a-half acre property. However, the Finance Commissioner determined Third Generation did not have the financial proof to back its proposal. In July, Council voted again, this time approving a $34-million scheme by Inn on the Park-Four Seasons, the other bidder in the April vote. During the event, an alderman was even accused of accepting a bribe, which he denied. In 1969, construction began on the 43-storey, 1,400-room hotel, which would become the Four Seasons-Sheraton Hotel. John B. Parkin Associates, who worked on City Hall, designed the complex.

Welcome to the Sheraton-Four Seasons Hotel

In 1972, the Sheraton-Four Seasons Hotel opened (the ‘Four Seasons’ would be dropped in 1976 as the hotel pulled out of the venture), the culmination of a 15-year saga to renew the Queen Street West strip across Toronto’s new municipal hub. Carrying the memorable street address ‘123 Queen West’, it was the second largest hotel in Toronto at the time of opening behind only the iconic Royal York Hotel (it was surpassed by the Chelsea Delta which opened only a few years later).

Conforming with the by-law from a decade earlier, the main hotel tower is situated off to the side of the city hall and square towards York Street, offering an unobstructed vista. The eastern side of the block saw the erection of a two-storey TD bank branch and the Queen-Bay Centre, consisting of the 25-storey Thomson Building and the Munich Re Centre, opening in 1972 and 1973 respectively. The latter building opened on the site of the demolished Temple Building, whose fragments are found at the Guild Inn Park.

In 2022, at fifty years old, the Sheraton Centre is a unique modernist, Brutalist construction. Its central area forms an atrium of waterfall gardens designed by J. Austin Floyd, the famed landscape architect who also left his footprint at the famed yet now lost Inn on the Park hotel at Leslie Street and Eglinton Avenue.

On the Queen Street mega-hotel, architect Michael McLelland wrote how “metropolitan structures like the Sheraton Centre are an integral part of the downtown morphology”. Its views of the complex across the street, which was the catalyst of its construction, are unparalleled in Toronto.

The Sheraton Centre and Toronto City Hall are fine examples of Toronto as a city made and re-made. They mark the ‘creative destruction’ of the post-war years. The south side of Queen Street between Bay and York was an interesting mix of establishments, many with varying stories and origins. The condemning of the strip as a ‘commercial slum’ and its subsequent replacement offers a complicated takeaway. On the one hand, the physical erasure has understandably hidden those histories from collective consciousness; on the other, the emergence of the Sheraton Centre has offered Toronto a marvel in itself. For better or worse, Toronto was growing up after World War II — in area, age, building heights, and architectural styles. The construction of the Sheraton Centre was in itself a microcosm of this period of transformation — and the representative of the expendability of centrally-located, culturally- and socially-colourful sectors like this one.

Works Consulted

[@ebloor]. “Twitter Message.” Twitter, 16 Aug. 2022. https://twitter.com/e_bloor/status/1559665299170816000?s=20&t=GT0tG6pTd3ZA5qCfAWQD4Q

[@raydonlive]. “Twitter Message.” Twitter, 16 Aug. 2022. https://twitter.com/raydonlive/status/1559626188485758979?s=20&t=GT0tG6pTd3ZA5qCfAWQD4Q

“10 Years to Renew Queen – Manthorpe.” The Toronto Daily Star, 14 Aug. 1964, p. 21.

“119 Church St.” Development Applications, http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=EuizkruJ6mXTxYPzkuYP2A%3D%3D.

“8-Story Building Queen St. Plan.” The Globe and Mail, 10 Sept. 1958, p. 5.

Baker, Alden. “Queen Street Project: Municipal Board Head Won’t Reopen Hearings.” The Globe and Mail, 24 Feb. 1968, p. B2.

Barr, Edward H. “Toronto’s Vanishing Chinatown.” The Globe and Mail, 9 Nov. 1957, pp. A21–A23.

“Bay-Queen Agreement Held Near.” The Globe and Mail, 22 Feb. 1966, p. 5.

Best, Michael. “Givens Sees His Shadow on His Queen Street Dream.” The Toronto Daily Star, 10 Feb. 1965, p. 28.

Best, Michael. “Special Report: Our New City Hall Will Face a Slum.” The Toronto Daily Star, 29 Dec. 1962, p. 1.

Best, Michael. “U.S Cities Clear Slums While We Flounder.” The Toronto Daily Star, 29 Jan. 1963, p. 7.

“Blueprint for Action.” The Globe and Mail, 10 Sept. 1958, p. 6.

Bradburn, Jamie. “From Eaton’s to Sears to Nordstrom.” Torontoist, 15 Jan. 2014, https://torontoist.com/2014/01/from-eatons-to-sears-to-nordstrom/.

Canadian Foreign Exchange Office. “Canadian Foreign Exchange Office.” The Globe, 18 Dec. 1920, p. 11.

Chan, Arlene. The Chinese in Toronto from 1878: From Outside to inside the Circle. Read How You Want, 2017.

“Charley Has A Bell: Wily Chinaman Prepares for Visits From Police.” The Toronto Daily Star, 19 Sept. 1904, p. 12.

“City Council’s Cue.” The Globe and Mail, 17 May 1958, p. 6.

“City’s Stake in Queen Street South.” The Toronto Daily Star, 16 July 1964, p. 6.

Enright, Michael. “Bewildering Episodes behind the Scenes of a Queen Street Hotel.” The Globe and Mail, 20 Apr. 1968, p. 7.

Filey, Mike. “The Way We Were: Sharing Photographic Memories of Henry’s.” Toronto Sun, https://theprovince.com/opinion/columnists/the-way-we-were-sharing-photographic-memories-of-henrys-as-camera-shop-closes-some-stores/wcm/410f17b8-c545-4a67-95a0-78ae1b5cf769.

Four Seasons Sheraton Hotel. “Something New in Toronto.” The Toronto Star, 28 Nov. 1972, p. 10.

“FOUR SEASONS HOTEL AT 12-STORY LEVEL.” The Globe and Mail, 13 Mar. 1971, p. B1.

“Gay History in Toronto.” UrbanToronto, UrbanToronto, 9 July 2014, https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/gay-history-in-toronto.19918/.

Haggart, Ron. “How the Rubin Boys Lost Their Head Start.” The Toronto Daily Star, 13 Aug. 1964.

Hanrahan, William. “Grass in, Burlesque Out on Queen Street.” The Globe and Mail, 21 July 1965, p. 27.

“Hotel on Queen Street Approved as Piccininni Denies Bribe Offered.” The Globe and Mail, 6 July 1968, p. 1.

“Interview with X Tape 1, Side 1.” Alotarchives.org, https://www.alotarchives.org/locations-mentioned/denver.

“Inventor Is Promoted.” The Toronto Daily Star, 24 July 1917, p. 13.

“The Leading Issues.” The Globe and Mail, 13 Nov. 1954, p. 6.

LeBlanc, Dave. “A Brutal Trek through Toronto’s Brutalist Architecture.” The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, 21 Apr. 2018, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/article-a-brutal-trek-through-torontos-brutalist-architecture/.

Let Us Bring Your Friends From The Old Country. “Gurofsky’s Shipping Office.” The Toronto Daily Star, 1 Apr. 1920, p. 12.

Lipinsky, Jack. Imposing Their Will: An Organizational History of Jewish Toronto, 1933-1948. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011.

Lorinc, John. “The Slum We Buried in the Heart of Toronto.” The Globe and Mail, 23 May 2015, p. M1.

Lorinc, John, et al. The Ward: The Life and Loss of Toronto’s First Immigrant Neighbourhood. Coach House Books, 2015.

“The Man on Queen Street.” The Globe and Mail, 8 Jan. 1965, p. 7.

“Mayor Givens at the Helm.” The Toronto Daily Star, 26 Nov. 1963.

McHugh, Patricia, et al. Toronto Architecture: A City Guide. McClelland & Stewart, 2017.

McClelland, Michael, and Graeme Stewart. Concrete Toronto: A Guidebook to Concrete Architecture from the Fifties to the Seventies. Coach House, 2008.

Micallef, Shawn. “Toronto’s Mid-Century Sheraton Centre Is Modernism Worth Preserving.” Thestar.com, Toronto Star, 24 Jan. 2020, https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2020/01/24/torontos-mid-century-sheraton-centre-is-modernism-worth-preserving.html.

“Military Hospitals Report Submitted.” The Globe, 27 Oct. 1916, p. 8.

“New City Hall Judges Urge Redevelopment of Downtown Area.” The Globe and Mail, 15 May 1958, p. 29.

“New Russia Calls Sons.” The Toronto Daily Star, 2 June 1917, p. 5.

“Now in Their 70th Year, Featuring ‘Quality Value and Service’.” The Toronto Star, 27 Sept. 1979, p. B3.

“Pawnshop Is Held Up and Ottawa Clerk Is Seized by Police.” The Globe, 31 May 1928, p. 22.

“Police Spring Surprise: Fifty Chinamen at 113 Queen Street West Last Night.” The Toronto Daily Star, 9 Sept. 1904, p. 1.

“Political Parties At City Hall.” The Toronto Daily Star, 3 Dec. 1963, p. 6.

“A Program For Toronto.” The Globe and Mail, 25 Nov. 1958, p. 7.

“Progress Report: Queen Street Redevelopment.” The Globe and Mail, 10 Oct. 1960, p. 7.

Promiscuous Affections: 1971, http://www.rbebout.com/bar/1971.htm.

“Queen St. Hotel to Be Started next Week.” The Globe and Mail, 24 Apr. 1969, p. 5.

“Queen Street Expropriation Approved 17-4.” The Globe and Mail, 13 Aug. 1964, p. 5.

“Queen Street Plan: Will Build to Design Of 1963, Dennis Says.” The Globe and Mail, 9 Sept. 1965, p. 5.

“Queen Street Project: Municipal Board Head Won’t Reopen Hearings.” The Globe and Mail, 30 May 1967, p. 5.

“Ready to Pay $25,000 to Move Hotel.” The Globe, 13 Feb. 1914, p. 7.

“Report on the Conditions of Hotels in Toronto Sent to Liquor Board.” The Globe and Mail, 4 Feb. 1946, p. 3.

Ross, Andrew [@hoghee]. “Tweet Message.” Twitter, 16 Aug 2022 https://twitter.com/hoghee/status/1559639434554789888?s=20&t=GT0tG6pTd3ZA5qCfAWQD4Q.

Ross, Daniel. “Sex on Yonge: Examining the Decade When Yonge Street Was the City’s Sin Strip.” Spacing Toronto, 9 Mar. 2017, http://spacing.ca/toronto/2017/03/09/sex-yonge-examining-decade-yonge-street-citys-sin-strip/.

Ross, Daniel. The Heart of Toronto: Corporate Power, Civic Activism, and the Remaking of Downtown Yonge Street. UBC Press, 2022.

Sandilands, Catriona. Complicating Queer Space in Toronto: How the Development of Toronto’s LGBTQ2I Spaces Fits within Homonormative and Homonationalist Scripts. https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/34706/MESMP02750.pdf?sequence=2.

Scheinberg, Ellen. Email to Bob Georgiou, 12 Aug 2022.

Sears, Val. “The Commercial Slum Across From City Hall.” The Toronto Daily Star, 1 May 1964, p. 7.

Senter, James. “Metropolitan Toronto: A Look at the Future of the City Hall Area.” The Globe and Mail, 18 May 1962, p. 7.

Sismondo, Christine Alexandra. “Toronto the Gay: The Formation of a Queer Counterpublic in Public Drinking Spaces, 1947-1981.” YorkSpace Home, 28 May 2018, https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/34509.

“South Side Story.” The Toronto Daily Star, 31 Oct. 1958.

“The South Side Story: A Tragedy.” The Toronto Daily Star, 2 May 1964, p. 6.

Taylor, Doug. “Toronto’s Broadway Theatre (Globe, Roxy) on Queen St. West.” Historic Toronto, 10 Jan. 2014, https://tayloronhistory.com/2014/01/09/torontos-old-movie-theatresthe-broadway-theatre-on-queen-st/.

Taylor, Doug. “Toronto’s Old Movie Theatres-The Infamous Casino on Queen St.” Historic Toronto, 6 Nov. 2013, https://tayloronhistory.com/2013/11/06/torontos-old-movie-theatresthe-infamous-casino-on-queen-st/.

“Too Soon To Cheer For Queen St.” The Toronto Daily Star, 27 June 1963.

“Urge Design Competition For Queen Street Project.” The Globe and Mail, 29 May 1965, p. 5.

“What’s Ahead? Voters Tell City Get on with Queen Development.” The Toronto Daily Star, 8 Dec. 1964.

The ‘Commercial Slum’ That Once Stood Across Toronto City Hall

Note: This article is the first piece in a two-part series. The second article can be found here.

When Toronto’s New City Hall and Square opened in 1965, there was a problem. While Ontario’s Capital was looking to move into a new era, the commercial strip across the new civic centre did not fit into those plans for modernization.

“Redevelopment Area” or “Commercial Slum”?

In 1958, Toronto was in the midst of an international design competition to construct a new city hall and square. The winning entry had not yet been chosen, but the jury — a panel of architects and town planners — had a particular recommendation. For the new landmark to be better situated, Toronto needed to redevelop the downtown area all around the site to better complement it, including the street directly opposing the civic centre. They proposed:

“City action to replace the unworthy buildings on Queen St., between Bay and York Sts., with a continuous facade, not over 90 feet high, with an open arcade under the building for the whole length.”
The Globe and Mail, May 15, 1958

The Globe and Mail agreed with the report of the jurors, citing “it would be a disgrace to leave a stick of it standing as a backdrop to the expensive – and, we hope, beautiful – Civic Square.”

In September, Toronto Planning Board was instructed by the Board of Control to make proposals on the Queen St. frontage. The board recommended the city buy the site and then sell or lease it to a developer. The Globe and Mail also called the south side “a hodge-podge of small, old buildings in various states of repair” and the shops “remain as reminders of that former area, bearing little relation to present surroundings.” The land was divided into separately owned lots and it was estimated $7,000,000 would be needed to buy them.

On October 27, 1958, the city passed a bylaw formally calling the strip a ‘redevelopment area’ and “giving the city expropriation powers over all but one of the properties.” The Toronto Daily Star was blunter in its characterization and advocacy of the fate of Queen Street West:

“Nearly everyone agrees that our handsome new city hall – when and if it is built – should not have to tolerate a commercial slum in front of it. And Queen St. between York and Bay is a tawdry hodge-podge”
Toronto Daily Star, October 31, 1958

The Daily Star and its editorial page in particular were very aggressive in their advocacy. It quite frequently enployed the phrase ‘commercial slum’ in the 1960s when reporting about the state of the site, including a December 1962 ‘Special Report’ boldly entitled “Our New City Hall Will Face a SLUM”:

“The rising towers of the new city hall look across Queen St. W. to a shabby vista of beer parlors, pawnshops, second-hand stores, a closed-down burlesque house.”
Toronto Daily Star, December 29, 1962

Still, the conservative outlet was interestingly weary of using public power to transfer property from private hands to private hands, i.e. the government moving shops from smaller, independent owners to larger, independent developers.

Whether the Queen Street row was euphemized as a ‘redevelopment area’ or disparaged as a ‘commercial slum’, urban renewal and slum clearance were certainly in the psyches and goals of governments of all levels in Canada and the United States of America for several decades in the 20th century. For Toronto, several lower-class neighbourhoods with ‘uneconomic uses’ were identified as requiring clearance and renewal. Regent Park became the first social housing project in Canada in 1947. The southern half of The Ward itself was voted to be expropriated in 1946 for the new city hall and square project, an area centred around Elizabeth Street once known as the first Chinatown in Toronto; the dense “slum” as a whole had calls to be rebuilt going back to the 1910s.

At work was the need to also rejuvenate Toronto’s historic downtown retail districts. Historian Daniel Ross wrote the city created its “pro-development Plan for Downtown Toronto” in 1963 with Yonge Street as a central part. After World War II, the rise of the automobile and urban sprawl impacted the central core, “emptying out” of its historical commercial districts as the suburbs developed their own retail and residential nexuses. A large part of the downtown plan was the Timothy Eaton Company’s Project Viking. First conceived in 1958, it was an endeavour which would reimagine the commercial empire’s ageing downtown holdings of mainly early 20th century warehouses as a post-war shopping centre. The project would become The Eaton Centre.

The Queen Street West Strip in History

In the early 20th century, the near three hundred-metre stretch of Queen between Bay and York Streets was characterized by hotels, restaurants, second-hand goods shops, barbers, butchers, jewelers, pawnbrokers, billiard shops, grocers, and fruit shops. Located on the southern edge of The Ward, a working-class immigrant enclave in the heart of Toronto, it also had East European Jewish and East Asian owned and ran-enterprises, such as restaurants, shops, and clubs.

First, the 1920 Toronto City Directory offers an interesting snapshot of the prominence and variety of Chinese businesses and organizations on the street. In this small zone, there were six Chinese restaurants (sadly all un-named as per the style of the directories in this period) and two tea-related businesses. Two organizations were on the street: The Chinese National League and The Chinese Reform Association. There was also a gentleman’s furnishings shop and possibly a photography shop. Yet Chong Lung Co. is referenced at 117 Queen, although it is unclear what type of dealings it entailed.

105 Queen Street West was a curious address in 1926. The city directory for the year divides the building into 105 — Tighe Lee, billiards — and 105 1/2 — Chinese National League. A picture from the year shows a sign above the door possibly reading “Pool Room”. The sign above that is written in Chinese with an illegible English caption underneath, roughly translating to “Kuomintang Office” or “Republic of Taiwan Political Party”. The smaller third sign on the third floor roughly translated to “World Mirror”, an arts society set up by the Kuomintang.

*105 Queen Street West, 1926.*
*Source: City of Toronto Archives*

113 Queen Street West was an intriguing case in that at different points it hosted a Chinese restaurant, the Jewish Daily Eagle, and the Union Ticket Office. In the 1910s, the address was listed in the city directories as hosting a Louis Gurofsky, Joseph Gurofsky, and Samuel Gurofsky at differing times. They were also characterized as ‘insurance agents’. By the 1920s, it was listed as The Union Ticket Office — a steamship ticket business.

Steamship ticket agents were common professions for Jewish-Torontonians and there were several competing businesses in The Ward. The enterprises played a role in the immigration process for Jews abroad. Historian Jack Lipinsky wrote “steamship agents, as their name indicates, originally concentrated on issuing boat and train ticks, mostly to immigrants.” Agents were landsmanschaften and “remittance agents” who worked with the Jewish Immigration Aid Services to bring Jews to Toronto. Lipinski notes that some agents were “dishonest” and defrauded prospective immigrants, including a David Gurofsky. It is unclear if this is the same or related Gurofsky(s) who operated at 113 Queen Street, but the damage done to the industry by him was enormous. The director of Canada’s Immigration Branch, Frederick Charles Blair, was “permanently suspicious” of the Jewish community because of Gurofsky’s dealings, a development which would later impact fleeing European Jews in the 1930s and 1940s.

The Gurofsky office seemed to play roles in the First World War. In 1916, the steamship office was responsible for enlisting “Hebrews”. The Globe reported it expected “at least fifty men” in Toronto to sign up for the great war and that over 1,100 had already joined across Canada. In 1917, Louis Gurofsky, at the delegation of the Russian consul, was tasked with “rounding up” prominent Russian Torontonians to return to their home country at the request of the new Russian Provisional Government who were “honeycombing” for “former friends — revolutionists and socialists” who had left Russia. Finally, The Daily Star reported in July 1917, a Mischa Bedler of 113 Queen Street West, a 24-year-old Jewish inventor handed over “a very valuable discovery in wireless telegraphy” to the Canadian government and was promoted to a lieutenant and instructor in the Royal Flying Corps.

Some of the businesses were mainstays on Queen Street for much of the 20th century. Simon Simonsky (occasionally spelt ‘Simonski’), a pawnbroker, was in business since at least the 1890s, settling at 121 Queen and then 107 Queen, where he would stay for at least sixty years. Historian Ellen Scheinberg wrote the family may have been peddlers originally: wandering street salesmen pushing carts of goods. A common professional trajectory of peddlers was to raise enough capital to open a shop, which Simonsky seemed to accomplish. According to a 1954 obituary for Mrs Annie Simonsky, the Simonskys were a “family long active in Jewish communal circles in Toronto”. By 1964, with forced closure looming, the shop moved to 115 York Street.

Harry Stein, a Russian watchmaker, landed on the Queen Street strip in 1932 at a shop at 63 Queen named Henry & Co (in the city directories, it was originally listed as ‘Harry Stein, jeweler’; the business also started as a watch repair shop on Yonge Street in 1909). In 1945, the jewelry business moved to 113 Queen — the former site of Gurofsky’s steamship ticket office. It later added other products and electronics to its offerings, most notably cameras, making it the first Henry’s, as we know it today. Henry’s later resurfaced at other locations, including 119 Church Street near Queen Street East in the 1970s. Henry’s announced in 2022 it would be leaving this location and a condominium is proposed to take its place.

Palaces of Sin

Two cinemas also were huge presences on the Queen Street row. The Broadway Theatre at 75 Queen Street West was on the strip since 1919, opening as the Globe Theatre. Historian Doug Taylor wrote the theatre started playing “‘Girlie Shows’ as well as vaudeville and B-movies”. In the 1930s, it was briefly the Roxy and changed to its final name in 1937. In 1935, the manager of Broadway was found murdered in his office; the killing was never solved.

The Casino Theatre at 87 Queen Street West was an “infamous” burlesque house built in 1936, according to Taylor. He pointedly described the movie house: “Throughout the theatre history of Toronto, other than perhaps the Victory Theatre on Spadina, there is no entertainment venue that has elicited as much praise, raunchy stories, condemnation and newspaper coverage as the infamous Casino Theatre.”

The theatre had reputable architects, Kaplan and Sprachman, who were famed for many of Toronto’s beautiful art deco theatres. The owners of The Casino partnered with the owner of the neighbouring Broadway to open the venture. But a foul reputation followed the Casino itself, which “was famous for its raunchy comedians and risqué burlesque” and “decent citizens” called a “sin palace”. In 1961, the Casino was renamed ‘the Festival Theatre’ as a failed attempt to clean up its image. In the final year of its existence, the theatre was playing a Russian Film Festival, perhaps as a means to that end.

Two hotels — the bar beer parlours referenced by the Star – were (in)famous on the south side of Queen. The Municipal Hotel stood at 67 Queen Street West since at least the late 1890s. The Municipal seemed to have a rowdy reputation throughout its history with fights, arrests, and fires plaguing its life. In 1946, Toronto Police prepared a report on hotels to send to the Ontario Liquor Board and had this to say about the hotel:

“Municipal Hotel, 67 Queen St. W.:

‘The chief complaint against this hotel is thefts from drunks who are permitted to become inebriated on the premises. It is also a rendezvous for prostitutes, and a number of girls have been removed from the premises by the police. This hotel is poorly managed and there is much room for improvement.'”
The Globe and Mail, February 4, 1946

Several doors down, at 71 Queen Street West, there were several versions of a hotel at this location since the early 1900s: the Aberdeen Hotel, Lennon’s Hotel, the White’s Hotel, and finally the Union Hotel/House. The Union had a similar seedy reputation to the Municipal. The 1946 report wrote:

“Union Hotel, 71 Queen St. W.:

‘This place appears nothing more than a pickup place for prostitutes, and it is amazing to find how many girls in the downtown area will give their address as the Union Hotel. Plainclothesmen have removed many girls from the premises, and only recently they arrested two teen-agers who had stayed at this hotel three nights with different men each night. A number of girls arrested in this hotel were found to have venereal disease. Improvement by the management in regard to the conduct of this hotel is long overdue.'”
The Globe and Mail, February 4, 1946

Interestingly, The Union and Municipal played notable roles in the history of Toronto’s gay community after World War II. Of the 1950s and 1960s, historian Christine Sismondo wrote the bar rooms of both hotels became places where the gay and lesbian communities were patrons, so much that the area around Queen and Bay was known to the groups for “cruising” as “The Corners” or “Queer Street”. The Municipal in particular was “known for its cheap beer by the glass and transient clientele” in this period and “received far more surveillance” than other establishments along higher class lines. It was known to be a “rough” bar, patronized by hustlers and ex-convicts.

Given this overall history and characterization, it is easily conceivable why the Queen Street frontage held such little value for Toronto decision-makers. Fire, assault, murder, sex, and more all found homes on the street. The shops and professions themselves were of inconsequential business value, the two theatres were ‘sinful’, and the hotels were cheap establishments with questionable management and clientele. Even including the impressively designed Broadway Theatre, the built form of the street was not of any notable architectural significance. Taken together, the row was simply expendable for a city looking for “progress”.

A Toronto intersection named for the same British royal

What’s the most colonial representation of colonial Toronto in Toronto? It might be a street marker built into the corner of a George Brown College buiding at Frederick Street and Adelaide Street East.

But the marker itself doesn’t read Frederick and Adelaide; rather, it reads Frederick and Duke. Frederick is still Frederick, but Duke doesn’t exist anyore.

The laughable part of this intersection is it was at one point named entirely for the same guy: Prince Frederick, The Duke of York of Great Britain.

At the time Duke and Frederick were named, the settlement containing them was also named for Duke Frederick: The Town of York. The Duke never visited the town named for him or likely had any direct role in its formation or growth. The British locales contained in his title also got a street name further west of the town – York Street. The Duke was also the son of King George, the reigning monarch at the time of the town’s founding, who had at least two other street names – King and George – named directly and indirectly for him.

And even more, nearly every street in early York was named by another Brit in charge of this colony: John Graves Simcoe, who didn’t like the indigenous name for the region — Tkaronto. Instead, when setting up his new town and the first few streets in it, he felt it more worthy honouring a man from his home country who scored a victory in his own continent as well as after other members of the British nobility and royalty.

The Town of York would revert to its indigenous name, albeit with an English spelling – Toronto. Duke Street would merge with and take on the name of the nearby rerouted Adelaide Street, named for another royal who likely didn’t have any contributions to the city either.

As a layered bonus, this wasn’t even the first time Duke Street was involved in a name change. The original Duke Street was today’s King Street. The original King Street was Palace Street, today’s Front Street. The Duke Street before this northern re-shifting was Duchess Street, named for the Duke’s royal counterpart. Duchess would move up a street too. It also merged with and took on the name of nearby Richmond Street. The streets of the original blocks of Toronto clearly had a colonial theme.

But today, the marker at Frederick and Adelaide Street still reads Frederick and Duke, still honouring the same guy.

A Quick History of The Iconic Guild Inn in Scarborough

With its history and environment, the storied Guild Inn is one of the most unique places in Toronto. Its ninety-year history has evoked a lot nostalgia, both for its visitors and the city’s built heritage as a whole.

The Beginnings

The Guild Inn sits on a tract of land that was known as Lot 13 Concession C on Scarborough’s waterfront. It was part of the Scarboro Village Post Office Community. The lot was owned, among others, by the Humphreys family in the 19th century.

The Guild Inn story begins in 1914 when the property came under the ownership of General Harold Child Bickford. He built a 15-bedroom, two-winged house on the parcel, naming it Ranelagh Park. The home would later go on to be known as The Bickford House.

The Guild of All Arts

In July 1932, Rosa Breithaupt Hewetson bought the Bickford House and the 40-acre property. Together with her new husband H. Spencer Clark, they began to transform it into The Guild of All Arts.

The Toronto Daily Star described its early concept:

“A unique venture into realms of co-operative living will shortly be attempted by a group of Toronto writers, artists, professors and business men, in protest against the standardization of art, education and industry in modern life….

‘The movement is not communistic” was the first declaration.”
Toronto Daily Star, August 27, 1932

Two notable artists who worked at the Guild of All Arts at some point were English sculptor Dorothy Dick and Hungarian-born Torontonian Nicholas Hornyansky.

The Guild of All Arts was accessible south of Kingston Road via a side road (possibly today’s Livingston Avenue) that “twisted into a low forest and glided least into a clearing 1,000 feet from the edge of the cliffs”.

A column by ‘The Homemaker’ in the Daily Star in April 1933 set the scene:

“About forty acres of beautiful countryside, bordered by steep cliffs running down to the water’s edge, surround the house and the barn, which members of the community have been making over into homes, studios, and workshops.

Everywhere there were fine stone fireplaces. In one upper room, beautifully proportioned, we found, under the rafters, a large loom set up, and the weaver ready to talk to us of the possibilities of Ontario wool and Ontario flax – possibilities still, apparently, in the infancy of their development.

About twenty-two residents are not on the place, including a goodly number of children, and visiting children were fascinated by the perfect playhouse that had been built for them. It did seem a fine atmosphere for children, with so much of the real country about them and the real fundamental activities of life from which to learn their lessons, tangible and otherwise.”
Toronto Daily Star, April 29, 1933

The Guild Inn began as this artists’ colony, a legacy that is perhaps not as visible in the current incarnation of the property. The Osterhout Log Cabin — along with The 1940 Sculptor’s Cabin near the north entrance of the property — is one of those remaining markers. The Osterhout Cabin came with the Bickford property when the Clarks bought it. It later served as the work place for sculptor-in-residence Elizabeth Fraser Williamson. A plaque dedicated to her is displayed nearby. A marker about the log cabin itself places the construction as the oldest building in Scarborough dating to 1795, but further research has rather placed its origin to the Humphreys family in the mid-nineteenth century.

The Guild Inn

By the end of the 1930s, the Clarks began to make The Guild of All Arts into The Guild Inn, running it as an event space and country inn, a rural getaway atop the Scarborough Bluffs. In the following decade, they expanded the building and its operations, making it a vacation destination for bridal couples and more.

In the latter part of and following the end of World War II, the Guild Inn’s operations were interrupted to aid in the war effort and recovery. Its building and grounds were leased by the Clarks to the Department of Pensions as a ‘convalescent home to restore the health of men nerve-shattered in the Canadian armed services”. The arts were part of the process.

Guildwood Village

In the 1950s, the Clarks sold the hundreds of acres they acquired near the Guild Inn to a developer to build a new planned community. Spencer Clark managed the project. The new community was called Guildwood Village and opened in the late 1950s.

Guildwood Parkway runs through the centre of Guildwood Village, curling south from Kingston Road. Part of the road was renamed from Eglinton East, a severed section of the main road to the west. The neighbourhood entrance at Kingston is adorned by the salvaged former gates of the Stanley Barracks (New Fort York). Running off the side of the parkway were curving, tree-lined residential streets, one of which is Toynbee Trail, which hosted a series of model homes collectively called the Avenue of Homes.

Several landmarks opened in the early years along Guildwood Parkway: the Guildwood Presbyterian Church, the Guildwood Village Shopping Centre, and Sir Wilfred Laurier Collegiate. Interestingly, the school’s opening in 1965 seems to have coincided with the closure of four streets east of Livingston and south of Guildwood Parkway. These streets, particularly Woodvale Road, ran right up to the Bluffs.

The Sculpture Garden

On the Guild’s grounds themselves, the Clarks had great plans as well. In 1958, The Globe reported that “a funicular railway, an outdoor Amphitheatre that will seat 1,500 persons, and a copy of the Hampton Court maze” were part of “the third stage of Spencer Clark’s dream”. The incline railway would have ran 300 feet from the top of the bluffs to the base where a cabana night club would be located. It was never built. The maze, however, did become an attraction in the early 1960s and onwards. The amphitheater would have to wait. In 1965, they also added a six-storey hotel addition.

Perhaps the biggest change was the addition of a unique sculpture park. In the 1960s, Spencer Clark began to collect architectural fragments from demolished buildings in and around Toronto. His method was laborious:

“Sometimes it meant standing all day long, often in a bitter winter wind, cajoling, begging and bribing workmen to bring them down, from some great height, in one piece. This would be after Mr. Clark had arranged with the wrecking company for the purchase of the piece. But the final arbitrator was the man swinging the wrecker’s ball, he discovered. And once down, these enormous pieces – each weighs anywhere from half a ton to six tons – had to be carted many miles to the collector’s Scarborough property.”
The Globe and Mail, August 6, 1970

More than just preserving the intangible heritage of the buildings, Clark’s goal was to save the craftmanship and skill inherent to the buildings, an objective which directly fit in with the initial vision of The Guild Of All Arts. The collection is a notable what’s what of iconic former Toronto landmarks:

The Banker’s Bond Building, formerly at 60 King Street West

The Temple Building, formerly at Bay Street and Richmond Street West

The Old Toronto Star Building, formerly at 80 King Street West

The Old Globe and Mail Building, formerly at York Street and King Street West

Victoria Park School (S.S. 23), formerly at Victoria Park Avenue and Highway 401

The Granite Club, formerly at St. Clair West near Yonge Street

The Registry of Deeds and Land Titles Building, formerly at 90 Albert Street

In 1977, with the Clarks growing older and business costs rising, the couple sold the Guild Inn to the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Metro Toronto City Council. The goal was to protect the site by keeping it in the public trust. Spencer Clark had been thinking about how to best ensure the Inn and its grounds’ future, including a plan in 1971 to bestow some lakefront parkland to the province.

The Toronto Daily Star, September 22, 1971
Source: Toronto Star Archives

Clark continued to manage it for another five years, however. In 1982, in time for the The Guild of All Arts’ fiftieth anniversary, they added the park’s centrepiece: The Greek Theatre. The sculpture was made from salvaged columns of the Bank of Toronto building, formerly at King and Bay Streets, which was demolished to make way for its ambitious successor, the Toronto-Dominion Centre. The theatre is located on the former spot of the Hampton Court maze. It serves as a backdrop for performances and photoshoots.

A Future Uncertain

From the 1980s, the prevailing theme surrounding the Guild Inn was its future. In an interview with the Globe and Mail in 1981, Mr. Clark himself expressed his desire to “make sure they don’t change this place into just another commercial motel or glorified hamburger stand.” Rosa Clark died in that year, followed by her husband five years later. The City of Toronto leased the site to a developer who managed and operated the Inn. It was a money-losing operation in need of repairs until its closure in 2001. Although the park remained opened, the Inn was boarded up while proposals came through about how to revitalize it.

Revitalization

In 2017, the Guild Inn finally reopened as an event venue to much adulation. The 1965 hotel was demolished and in its place a new modern entertainment space was established. The Clark Centre for The Arts opened in 2022 as cultural facility in a 1960s era storage building on the property.

The City of Toronto continues to manage the grounds with the advocacy, help, and promotion from The Friends of Guild Park. The group’s motto for the park is ‘Where Art Meets Nature’, which neatly captures intersection park and its great trails with the artistry all over the grounds and its in history. Today, The Guild Inn Estate is a marvel for visitors old and new who may get a taste of its past and present.

A quick wander around Victoria Park Square, Brantford

Victoria Park is a quaint public square located in downtown Brantford. It is found in the square block bordered by Market Street, George Street, Wellington Street, and Darling Street. While the park is in itself interesting, the surrounding streets and sites make for an interesting wander through Brantford’s past and present, and colonial and indigenous roots.

The square’s origins are from Lewis Burwell’s 1830 Town Plan of Brantford, a scheme that laid out the village’s original blocks. It provides the genesis for Brantford’s central grid system and lays out its street names as well as some of the city’s original landmarks.

It was not the first survey of Brantford and white settlers were living in Brantford prior to 1830 along with Indigenous peoples, but it was still an important development. Victoria Park appears as Municipal Public Square.

Although Victoria Park was laid out in 1830, it wasn’t fully landscaped until 1861. Its designer was John Turner and its diverging paths are intended to mimic the Union Jack flag.

A statue to Mohawk Leader and Brantford’s namesake Thayendanegea – anglicized name Joseph Brant – stands boldly in the centre of the park. The monument was unveiled in 1866 as a tribute to Thayendanegea’s allegiance to the British crown. The Brantford area was inhabited by the Haudenosaunee in 1700s. Brant himself is central to the city’s story in he ceded some lands for the place.

Facing the park on Wellington is the imposing Brant County Court House. The land was set aside in 1830 Town Plan and the building was designed later in 1851 by park designer John Turner.

The Brant Court House dons the Palladian style and is notable for its grand construction, great columns, and amazing symmetry.

The court house property takes up an entire block backing onto Nelson Street. A Jail and Registry Building make up other notable parts of the complex.

Opposite the Court House on its Market Street side is the Bell Telephone Company of Canada Building. Brantford is the “Telephone City” and the childhood home of the famed Alexander Graham Bell who lived on the outskirts of the city. The Bell Building is quite imposing and is highlighted by its clean grey facade and large central. Reminiscent of the Lincoln Memorial, a monument to the inventor sits at its entrance.

On the other side of the court house is a complex consisting of municipal and provincial offices at George and Wellington Streets. The impressive complex was built in 1967 in a textbook Brutalist style and offers a modernist layer to the old square. Until 2021, this was the location of Brantford City Hall; it has since moved to the 1913 Federal Building at Dalhousie and Queen Streets.

The corner has a plaque about the Founding of Brantford, which notes Six Nations ceded the land for the city and the role of railways, agriculture, and industry in the city’s development.

Prior to 1967, Brantford City Hall was located several blocks to the south at the historic Market Square. Like Victoria Park and the Court House, this square was included in 1830 Town Plan. The hall was also designed by Turner. Today, Eaton Market Square stands in its place.

Finally, facing into Victoria Square on its eastern side is the former Brantford Public Library. Built in 1904, its erection was facilitated by a donation from the famed Carnegie family, who funded the construction of many libraries in Ontario in the early 20th century. Today, the building is a satellite campus for Wilfred Laurier University.

The stunning library somewhat echoes the Classical stylings of the Brant County Court House with its own great details, including a grand dome and large windows adorned with the names of iconic historical authors.

Many other sites can be found in and around Victoria Park Square, including a historic water fountain on its west side, several churches — some converted and some modernized — with historic ties to Brantford on the park’s east and south sides, and a gorgeous Bank of Montreal building on the southwest side.

The square and its surroundings have been made and remade through its life. All these buildings — and even lack of buildings (i.e. parking lots) — were one-time additions which changed the complexion of the park at various times. The park’s purpose as a public square remains today, so that original piece of history stands today for Brantford.

The Rise of The Hill District, Toronto

The Hill District in Toronto is a lost neighbourhood — well, somewhat. The name may not be in prominent use, but its geography is certainly still there. The events of the 19th century and early 20th century that led to the rise of this interesting district involve pre-historic escarpments, stately houses, prominent Torontonians, unbuilt plans, and more.

The Beginnings

In rough terms, the Hill District can be found from Avenue Road to Bathurst Street and the Canadian Pacific Railway to north of St. Clair Avenue.

The “Hill” is the Davenport Road Escarpment, a glacial leftover of the old Lake Iroquois. It is also called the “Davenport” Hill or the “Spadina” Hill – words with Indigenous connections and origins. Davenport was an old portage trail; its name in Ojibwe is Gete-Onigaming: “at the old portage”. Spadina is a transliteration of “Ishpadinaa” or “a place on a hill” (meaning Spadina Hill actually means “Place on a Hill-Hill”).

In the 19th century, the area that would become The Hill District was mainly made up of grand, hundred-acre-and-more estates owned by prominent early Toronto settler families. These included the Baldwins, the Austins, the Wells, the Nordheimers, and more. By the turn of the century, the large, open estates began to turn to subdivided lots with the beginnings of a street grid.

At this point, developers and newspapers began to formally refer to and market the area as the “Hill District” — “the finest and will be the most exclusive residential district”. Advertisements attracted potential buyers to areas such as College Heights near Bathurst between St. Clair and Eglinton, Dunvegan Heights on Forest Hill Road, and Walmer Hill and St. Clair Park, both adjoining upscale subdivisions northeast of Bathurst and St. Clair.

Coinciding with the growth of ‘The Hill District’, areas were annexed by the City of Toronto in the first decades of the 20th century. This included the annexation of Wychwood and Bracondale in 1909, which included parts of the Wells, Austin, and Nordheimer lands. Also included were areas north of St. Clair and south of Lonsdale Road, between Spadina Road and Avenue Road.

The Neighbours

There were three noted neighbours of the early Hill District. James Austin, founder of Dominion Bank, was the owner of ‘Spadina’, an estate purchased from the Baldwins in 1866. Austin built Spadina House, the third version of the Baldwin manor. It was the next generation of homes to experience the spectacular vista of Toronto from the hill.

In the late 19th century, the western part of the Austin estate was subdivided into lots with laying out of Austin Terrace, Walmer Road, and Spadina Road.

An interesting part of the Spadina story was the corridor leading from Davenport Road to Austin Terrace. Although the Baldwins laid out Spadina Avenue south to the lake, the right of way running north of Bloor faced the challenge of Davenport Escarpment. Here, a set of wooden steps was built in the place of a road. At the top, running adjacent to Spadina House and it gardens was a green right of way. In 1913, the wooden steps were replaced by a sturdier construction which offered a less steep climb. (They would be replaced again in the 1980s to give us the present Baldwin Steps).

In the middle of the first decade of the 1900s, the very-interesting industrialist and land speculator Sir Henry Pellatt purchased property from the Austin and Wells estates for the construction of Casa Loma. The first structures completed were Pellatt Lodge and the horse stables on Walmer Road in 1905. His grand ‘castle’, which translated to ‘house of the hill”, was completed between 1911 and 1914.

An interesting episode in the construction of Casa Loma was Pellatt’s desire to expand his property at the expense of the Spadina Road steps and right of way. The Globe reported on Pellatt’s proposal:

The Works Committee of the City Council displayed gratuitous toleration of Sir Henry Pellatt’s ridiculous proposal to close Spadina road to Davenport road, and sell the right of way up the hill to enlarge the building site…
…It would be, were Davenport road widened, as it ought to be, comparatively easy to make a carriage road up to the hill…Perhaps the fear of the effect of such improment on his propety is the real motive for Sir Henry’s proposal. Whatever it is, he cannot have at any price what he is asking.”
The Globe, June 3, 1911.

More than the objection from the Works Committee, residents were also up in arms about the prospect of their direct access to the Dupont Streetcar being removed.

Sir John Craig Eaton was the son of Timothy Eaton, the famed department store baron. In 1908, Eaton purchased and razed the ‘Ravenswood’ house and estate, part of the Austin property, and constructed ‘Ardwold’, meaning “high green hill’, which was completed in 1911. Like Casa Loma and Spadina, Ardwold became the social hangout of ‘elite’ Toronto.

Eaton also funded and constructed Timothy Eaton Memorial Church on St. Clair Avenue near Dunvegan Road, opened in 1914.

In 1916, Casa Loma Architect E.J. Lennox moved into ‘Lenwil’ at 5 Austin Terrace at Walmer Road, on 3 acres of land from the Wells Estate. Lennox previously lived on Sherbourne Street.

The Rise of The Hill

In the 1920s, The Hill District further filled out with stately residences, ornate apartments, grand churches, and new (and proposed) roads.

1913 & 1924 Fire Insurance Views of The Hill
Source: Goad’s Toronto

In 1925, the Toronto Transportation Commission began running a coach service to the Hill, running a bus from Bay & Albert Streets to the district via Poplar Plains Road and Warren Road to Lonsdale & Orioles Roads. It gave Hill residents an alternative to the St. Clair and Dupont cars.

As the Hill intensified, new roads were proposed. Many were built, but some remained as only plans. In 1912, the former Nordheimer estate lands were the site for a proposed alternate road to Poplar Plains Road. The new road would have ran northwest from Davenport and Dupont through part of the Austin and Eaton lands to meet with Spadina Road near St. Clair. It never materialized.

In late 1920s, during the conceptualization of the St. Clair Reservoir to be located under the ravine, the idea of a highway through the lands resurfaced once more. While the reservoir was built along with a new bridge on Spadina Road, the road never materialized. (It would be another twenty years before another much more consequential highway project through Nordheimer Ravine — this one cutting through the valley west of Spadina and Road and down the street itself.)

A particularly interesting project was the Peter Pan Statue in a parkette at Avenue Road and St. Clair Avenue. The College Heights Association funded the installation of the statue, which was a replica of the sculptor Sr. George Frampton’s work in Kensington Gardens in London. It was unveiled on the northwest corner of the intersection on September 14, 1929.

Along with the Peter Pan Statue, a fountain was unveiled on the northeast corner. A donation by H.H. Williams, it too was a replica of a fountain found at the Peace Palace at The Hague.

The Neighbours, Revisited

The development and re-development of the area atop the Davenport Hill in the 1920s and 1930s featured some noteworthy episodes. In 1923, twelve plots opposite Casa Loma owned by the Pellatts were sold to a developer. These were four lots fronting onto Austin Terrace facing the castle and eight lots fronting onto Spadina Road and Walmer Road. In 1928, a plan was in place to build 26 semi-detached duplexes on the site. The caveat was the area required a zoning change, which was put to a vote:

Opposed were the following: R. A. Jones, K. M. Scott, F. E. McMulkin, Charles E. Walsh, W. C. R. Harris, Mary A. Rea, A. W. Austin, Mary R. Austin, Wm. A. Logie, Albert H. Austin, E. J. Lennox, C. W. Hookaway, Eleanor Guerney, H. L. Mathews, Helen McI. Kelley, Marjorie C. Pellatt, E. A. Bott, J. A. Rowland, Charles B. Boeckh, D. Macdonald; in favour, Lady Eaton and Eaton estate, H. J. Long, H. M. Pellatt, F. McMahon, and E. Renfrew.
Toronto Daily Star, May 19, 1928

Although not constructed until 1939, the homes were ultimately built along with a new road — now the appropriately named Castle View Avenue — connecting Walmer and Spadina. An aerial look at the subdivision shows a distinct departure from the surrounding neighbourhood and how the historic properties line inform today’s environment.

1924 to 2022 Austin Terrace Duplexes
Source: Goad’s Toronto and Google Maps

The land to the west of Casa Loma directly north of the escarpment was also redeveloped. By 1910, Austin Terrace was extended to Wells Hill Avenue. Austin Terrace west of Walmer Road was renamed to Theodore Avenue, but then renamed again to Wells Hill Crescent in 1914. By the end of the decade, Austin Terrace was extended to Hilton Avenue near Bathurst Street. Hilton Avenue would be absorbed into Austin Terrace by 1926, completing a route from Spadina to Bathurst.

1924 to 2022 Austin Crescent and Lyndhurst Court
Source: Goads Toronto and Google Maps

Coincidentally, by 1923, the lot south of Austin Terrace and north of Davenport directly over the escarpment was bought for development. Austin Crescent was partially built to run south of Austin Terrace; it was later extended into the adjacent lot. Lyndhurst Court, the twinning cul-de-sac, was completed in the 1950s.

For the Eatons’ Ardwold, Sir John C. Eaton passed away in 1922. By 1936, his widow, Lady Flora Eaton, announced it no longer made sense to maintain the stately home as their children had grown up. The 11-acre was sold and subdivided into lots. The house was demolished, with its former site being located at the end of the cul de sac, Ardwold Gate.

The Other ‘Hill District’

North of St. Clair, The Hill District had a neighbour in Spadina Heights. The area was known as such since 1910, when the area organized into York School Section 30. In 1923, after a failed bid for Toronto annexation, the area re-branded and incorporated as the Village of Forest Hill. It saw annexation finally in 1967.

The Hill District at one time may have actually included Forest Hill. But as The Hill District came to refer to areas annexed by the City of Toronto south of Lonsdale Road, the areas to the north came to be their own region.

The Toronto Transportation Commission extended coach service to Forest Hill in 1925. Most of the street grid south of Lonsdale Avenue was filled with buildings by the time, and development moved north through Forest Hill later in the decade and into the next.

By the 1930s, The Hill District and Forest Hill became part of the next generation of ‘fashionable Toronto’ neighbourhoods, moving north from the lake. First there was Jarvis Street; then came Rosedale; then finally the Hills. For example, several Eaton houses were located along Dunvegan Rd in the 1930s, including Lady Eaton’s residence following her exit from Ardwold.

1929 Forest Hill Aerial
Source: City of Toronto Archives

The Fall of The Hill District?

By the middle of the century, uses of ‘The Hill District’ diminished in the newspapers, possibly as other names gained prominence or the neighbourhood changed again. In modern times, the area is referred to with names such as The South Hill and Rathnelly. The City of Toronto in its neighbourhood profiles names the entire zone the “Casa Loma” neighhourhood.

Today, the Hill District is home to two amazing museum and event spaces, a stunning ravine, beautiful parks and parkettes, and thousands of people within its houses and apartment buildings — many with references to the escarpment and elevation. While ‘The Hill District’ may not be as prominent a name as a century ago, its legacy certainly lives on.

Was this the first Chinese restaurant in Toronto’s Junction?

On November 17, 1919, The Globe ran an odd article about a scuffle in a Junction restaurant. The event highlighted how a restaurant worker, potentially an owner, asked some patrons to stop smoking in his establishment. The customers disagreed and threw his own plates at the man before fleeing.

While the events are bizarre, the article features several notable details that, taken with other sources and context, paint an interesting picture of historic Toronto. First, it informs of one of the first Chinese-operated restaurants outside the central core of Toronto and perhaps the first restaurant in The Junction neighbourhood. It references the Chinese population and restaurants of the city in the early 20th century. Finally, it alludes to the general depiction and treatment of the Chinese community at the time.

The first significant detail in The Globe article is the “restaurant at 2,904 Dundas Street West”. The name of the cafe is not given, but the potential proprietor is listed as a “Ying Buck”, who is unfortunately described as a ‘Chinaman’ and ‘Celestial’ with ‘Manchurian blood’.

The name of the restaurant in 1919 is tricky to identify. The City of Toronto Directory for the year 1919 lists a “Chinese Restaurant” at 2904 Dundas Street West. In the year prior, the address previously hosted a “Gus Freeman, restaurant.” The early City Directories did not explicitly name Chinese entreprises or their proprietors, which makes their identification through this source challenging. Eateries were simply listed as “Chinese restaurant.”

The actual name of the Chinese restaurant can be somewhat identified through other sources. The City of Toronto Archives displays a “Amo Cafe” in an image of Dundas Street West looking west of Mavety Street in 1923, which is consistent with the address 2904 Dundas West.

References to “The Amo Cafe” are scarce in other sources, but the next appearance of the restaurant were in October 1929. The Globe and Toronto Daily Star outlined another bizarre scenario in which the cafe’s owner, this time a Charlie Chong, was held up in front of patrons by two youths after midnight on October 28.

Several wanted ads connected to 2904 Dundas Street West pointed to the address as a Chinese restaurant. In May 1919, a restaurant at 2904 Dundas published a wanted ad for an ‘experienced waitress’, possibly at a time when the restaurant was recently open or about to open. In 1925, a chef at 2904 Dundas placed an ad looking for work, seeming self-identifying as ‘Chinese’ and ‘experienced.’

By the 1930s, the restaurant at 2904 Dundas Street West was finally named in the directories. First, it appeared as “Ging Ing restaurant” in 1931. Then by the middle of the decade, “Amo Cafe” is named with proprietor “Bing Ing” (possibly the same individual as Ging Ing). It is not clear whether what the restaurant was called between 1919 and 1922, but it was almost certainly a Chinese restaurant. The Amo Cafe is listed in the City Directories until 1969, the last year of digitized directories in the Toronto Public Library’s collection. It may have been open longer. Unfortunately, there are not many other details identifiable about the cafe, such as the menu, employees, or what it looked liked beyond some descriptions of the kitchen being located in the rear.

The other addresses and names outlined in the article also tell us a bit more about the world around The Amo Cafe in the Junction. While Ying Buck, the owner of the Amo Cafe, does not appear in any other sources, C. Ham – or at least his address – shows up in the 1919 City Directory. At 21 Hook Avenue, a Mrs. Margaret Ham is listed, which may be a relative of Ham. The surname appears to be of Chinese origin.

Detective Hazelwood and Police Station No. 9 are also in the sources. Hazelwood is named in several crime-related news items. The police station was also known as Keele Street Station. Dundas Street West was complete with many everyday establishments: eateries, butchers, banks, candy shops, bicycle shops, grocers, and more. The restaurant, the police station, and Ham’s potential residence could all be found in a kilometre radius.

The existence of the Amo Cafe within this Junction neighbourhood is particularly curious as it was not an obvious location for Chinese restaurants for the time. The 1919 City Directory had a subsection for Chinese establishments under its category of restaurants. In this subsection, 2904 Dundas West is the only restaurant listed on its street, and the only one listed outside of the core of Toronto. The majority of restaurants were listed under Queen Street, Yonge Street, and York Street. The early Chinese community settled in Toronto in The Ward on Elizabeth Street near Queen Street. It is not clear if there was a notable Chinese population in the Junction in the 1920s and beyond.

Restaurant staff and customers gather at soda fountain and in booths, ca 1937. The window displays ‘restaurant’. The business is unknown.
Source: City of Toronto Archives.

The diction and content of The Globe article is also worth mentioning, because it is unfortunately representative of media characterizations of the Chinese community of Toronto at the time. ‘Chinaman’ and ‘Celestial’, now racial slurs, were common descriptors. For example, there are 3,639 results for searches of ‘Chinaman’ in the The Globe’s newspaper archive for 1900 to 1929. Ying Buck’s “Manchurian blood”, although perhaps not a common racist phrase, is also a questionable choice of words as Manchuria is a region within China, but there are not enough details to know if The Globe knew of the man’s origin.

News articles about Chinese restaurants in Toronto in the early 20th century also seemed to lean towards unfortunate events, like the 1919 scuffle and 1929 robberies of The Amo Cafe. Even the headline “Chinaman Pelted With His Crockery” highlights a level of violence and sensationalism. Robberies, gambling and drug raids, mobs, fines, and explosions make up some of the topics of newsworthy events. There also seems to be a general sentiment of distrust of and mystery about Chinese establishments and the Chinese quarter.

Today, there are plethora of Chinese restaurants in Toronto. Its community is large and vibrant. Gains have been imperfect and disgusting societal biases still remain, but one can hope the world of today is a step up from the attitudes of the time of the Amo Cafe. In an interesting turn of events, 2904 Dundas Street West is a Chinese restaurant in 2022, resuming a century-old legacy for the historic property.