Patterns Of Spatial Behavior Among Jews In West European .

182 Papers in Jewish Demography 1993Ashkenazic distance grew slightly. The center of gravity moved about 200 meters tothe north-east, due to outmigrations of the Jews - like the non-Jewish population- from the old city, which had developed into a Central Business District. In thelast generation a new cluster of Jews developed in Esplanade. This is a newneighborhood of high-rise apartment houses with more than 100 apartments each,near the university campus and at a walking distance of 20 to 30 minutes from themain synagogue - so this cluster is still within the standard distance mentionedabove. Therefore most of the activities of the community center in Esplanade are onweekends, while during week-days Esplanade Jews rely on the facilities near themain synagogue (kosher groceries, butchers, restaurants, Jewish schools, etc.). Tothe north of Esplanade, in the old established neighborhood of Orangerie, the Jewishpopulation is growing - but within easy walking distance of about 10 to 15 minutesto the community center. Therefore no new Jewish facilities are developing there,with·the exception of2-3 small synagogues and the aforementioned Talmudic high school "Yechiva des etudiants".TABLE 2.JEWISH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY RESIDENTIAL AREASAND DISTANCE FROM SYNAGOGUE, STRASBOURG,I961 AND 1990(pERCENTAGES)(Vondelpark, Station Rai, IThe Jewish population ofcontrary to the new Jewisdistance of the communityAmstelveen in 1961, and iJthe former ones, Amsterdconclusion is impossible dllLeeds (England)There are 9,000-10,000 Jtmainly based upon listsknowledge of the communi15,000 Jews, which seemssame as for Strasbourg. jaffiliated (based on the perJews). Whereas 5% is probpaper to include as Jews p community life, and do notFIGURE 3.1961RESIDENTIA1990ABeDICity center and its surroundingsNear synagogue (ContadeslHallesOrangerie neighborhoods)3012andEsplanade neighborhood010253465903O.0506All other neighborhoods (more than 50% ofresidential area)"131407Strasbourg, Total100100090810a. Cronenbourg, Koenigshoeffen, Montagne Verte, Elsau, Neudorf, Meinau, Neuhof,Robertsau.111213Amsterdam (Netherlands)There are about 10,000-14,000 Jews living in Amsterdam. Only very vague datawere given, due to the "Law of Privacy" (data-protecting law), so the results for thiscity must be accepted with even more reservations than for the other cities (Letter ofMr. Polak, secretary of the "Joodse gemeente Amsterdam" from June 12th, 1990).According to these data, about 80% of the Jews live in the southern part of the cityU o2R8Bid.ntiiir ;:;;%: :i19.199

Shimon Sternloved about 200 meters tohe non-Jewish populationI Business District. In the.splanade. This is a new:han 100 apartments each,20 to 30 minutes from thendard distance mentionedcenter in Esplanade are onon the facilities near the. Jewish schools, etc.). ToId of Orangerie, the Jewish: of about 10 to 15 minutesjties are developing there,mentioned Talmudic high !IV RESIDENTIAL AREASUSBOURG,I961 AND 1990(Vondelpark, Station Rai, Buitenveldert), and in the southern suburb of Amstelveen.The Jewish population of this suburb has been growing in the last decades, andcontrary to the new Jewish neighborhoods in Strasbourg it is not within walkingdistance of the community center of Amsterdam. New synagogues were founded inAmstelveen in 1961, and in Buitenveldert in 1967. As this is a different model fromthe former ones, Amsterdam was still included in this analysis, but any furtherconclusion is impossible due to the scarcity of available data.Leeds (England)There are 9,000-10,000 Jews in Leeds according to a study made by Freedman,mainly based upon lists of contributors to Jewish institutions and personalknowledge of the communities (Freedman, 1990). Other sources have estimated 13 15,000 Jews, which seems exaggerated. The reasons for accepting these data are thesame as for Strasbourg. According to Freedman, only 5% of the Jews are notaffiliated (based on the percentage of non-member Jewish burials and cremation ofJews). Whereas 5% is probably an underestimate, it would not be appropriate in thispaper to include as Jews people who are no longer dependent in any way on Jewishcommunity life, and do not contribute to any Jewish organization.FIGURE 3.RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF JEWS IN LEEDS, 1910-19901990AICDlrOBJILMI'Q 'UVWIYJA12016503029o.050614071000908, Neudorf, Meinau, Neuhof,am. Only very vague data: law), so the results for thisor the other cities (Letter ofm" from June 12th, 1990).he southern part of the city18310111213H1 o2 Built-up area 1990kinResidential areas of Jews in Le.ds; u 1910(L)w§f 19.5(Ch) ChapeltownLeylands1990(M)Moortown; (A) Alwoodley

184 Papers in Jewish Demography 1993A hundred years ago all the Jews of Leeds were living in the Leylands, at theimmediate northern proximity of the city center. (Middleton, n.d.). Then they movedto Chapeltown, tow to three miles northward, but were still very concentrated. TheJewish residents in Leeds of the late 19th century were textile factory workers ofEast European origin. The rise in their standard of living could be part of theexplanation for their leap-frogging to distant neighborhoods. Chapeltown was theactively Jewish neighborhood around 1920-1950 (Krausz, 1964). But in 1990 noJewish institutions or residences were found there, and almost all the Jews of Leedsnow live two miles farther north, in the Moortown comer and Alwoodleyneighborhoods. The last synagogue in Chapeltown was closed down in 1986, andthe last Jewish shop in 1988 (Freedman, 1990). The standard distance of Jewishresidences from their center of gravity in 1990 was about 900 meters; this is muchmore concentrated than in Basel or Strasbourg, as almost all the Jewish families ofLeeds live in detached houses, while in continental Europe apartment houses with 6to 12 apartments are the rule even for upper-class or middle-class residences, andmost of the Jews belong to these classes. Therefore the distances in Leeds should belarger, as is the urban area. The high degree of concentration is also well illustratedby looking at the postal districts. In 1990, 84% of households with synagoguemembers, as well as all the Orthodox Jewish communities in Leeds were located inLeeds 17. (In 1967 this area claimed only 50% of the households). Leeds 8, to theeast of Leeds 17, held 11.5% of the Jewish households and the Liberal (Reform)congregation with its "Sinai" synagogue. Even within Leeds 17, the southernmostsynagogues were closed down in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as the Jewscontinued moving northwards.The center of gravity of Jewish residents is today on the Northern Ring Road, tothe North-East of the city and far away from the general center of gravity. But theJews are concentrated in only one of the neighborhoods of their socioeconomicclass; there are almost no Jews living in the North-West of Leeds, which alsobelongs to the same socioeconomic group.Vancouver (Canada)Vancouver, with about 19,000 Jews in the Greater Vancouver area, of which about11,000 are in Vancouver City, is larger than the above-mentioned Jewishcommunities, but similar to them, this city has the third largest Jewish community inthe country.The Canadian census gives religious affiliation as well as ethnic origin. Inaddition, there exists a phone directory of the Jews of Vancouver, with about 4,400names. However, this list may be less accurate than the census, as not all thenumbers quoted are of Jews, and there are households with more than one phonenumber.There is also an account and analysis of the census results for 1986, comparingthem with data for 1971 and 1981 (Jewish Federation of GreaterVanvouver, 1990).According to these data about 90% of the Jewish population of Greater Vancouverwere living in the city in 1950, but only 58% in 1986. Between 1971 and 1981 themost outstanding change occurred in Richmond, to the south of Vancouver City.FIGURE 4.RESIDENTIALAND J986 - PElSource: Our People Count

Shimon Stern in the Leylands, at thel, n.d.). Then they movedII very concentrated. The xtile factory workers ofng could be part of the)ds. Chapeltown was the:, 1964). But in 1990 nolost all the Jews of Leedscomer and Alwoodleylosed down in 1986, andndard distance of Jewish900 meters; this is muchall the Jewish families of: apartment houses with 6Idle class residences, andlances in Leeds should beion is also well illustratedJseholds with synagoguein Leeds were located inJseholds). Leeds 8, to theand the Liberal (Reform):eds 17, the southemmost:arly 1990s, as the JewsFIGURE 4.RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF JEWS IN GREATER VANCOUVER, 1971AND 1986 - PERCENTAGES1971-"1':1'1000La".,11986Ie Northern Ring Road, tocenter of gravity. But the-s of their socioeconomic st of Leeds, which also'Uver area, of which aboutabove-mentioned Jewish"gest Jewish community inwell as ethnic origin. Inncouver, with about 4,400be census, as not all theifith more than one phonesuits for 1986, comparing(JreaterVanvouver, 1990).:ion of Greater Vancouver tween 1971 and 1981 theJth of Vancouver City.185Source: Our People Count, 1990.

186 Papers in Jewish Demography 1993This area contained 3.5% of the community in 1971, but by 1981 its portion hadgrown to 12% thus turning it into a second minor Jewish concentration. Thispercentage was still the same in 1986. 10% of the Jews of the conurbation residedon the north side of the Bay (West Vancouver and North Vancouver) in 1971, and9% in 1986. All the other ten suburbs each had less than 2% of the Jews in 1971 or7% altogether. By 1986, this percentage had grown to 15%.ModelsThis research found differeI1.TABLE 3.JEWISH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY RESIDENTIAL AREAS,GREATER VANCOUVER, 1971 AND 1986 (PERCENTAGES)19711986Vancouver7658Richmond412All other surburbs· (about 80% of area)2030Greater Vancouver100100A conservative, or medid not change durinmodel A of an expandmodels here). The resthe existing center aroutmigration of the geFIGURE 5.GJOHNSTON'!INTIAL STAGE: Cone.t,"tl.GHETIO MODELSa.A. Explndlng GhilloPort Moody, Coquitiam, Port Coquitiam, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, New Westminster,Surrey, White Rock, Longley, Delta.The Jewish day-schools, community center, retirement facilities and eight of theeleven synagogues are located in the Oak Street area, but this is no longer the focusof young families or of new arrivals (Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver,1990, p. 3).TABLE 4.JEWISH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY RESIDENTIAL AREAS,CITY OF VANCOUVER, 1971 AND 1986 (pERCENTAGES)19711986Oakridge area2222Other central neighborhoods4833Other neighborhoods3045Vancouver city, total100100B. Stltle Ghillo (No Movlment)G0 (GO(D. Movec! By N GhettoGelSource: Johnston, 1971,

Shimon Sternt by 1981 its portion had:wish concentration. This: f the conurbation residedVancouver) in 1971, and2% of the Jews in 1971 or-0.Models of Jewish Residential BehaviorThis research found different models of residential behavior:1.Y RESIDENTIAL AREAS,"ERCENTAGES)19865812FIGURE 5.GJOHNSTON'S MINORITY GROUPS LOCAnON MODELSINITIAL STAGE: Concentration In Inner city )ASSIMILATION MODELSGHEtTO MODELS!ple Ridge, New Westminster,It facilities and eight of theI this is no longer the focus.on of Greater Vancouver, YA conservative, or more or less static pattern in Basel, with one center, whichdid not change during more than three generations (similar to Johnston'smodel A of an expanding Ghetto; see Johnston, 1971 and the illustration of hismodels here). The residences moved slightly outwards, but remained loyal tothe existing center and the total outmigration was essentially less than theoutmigration of the general population.30100A.bpe ncI .l-G""lIoG )1986223345F. Minority SI 1y L Spellal IdenlltyGG (]\' '-'8-'O;"B MGe(§ RESIDENTIAL AREAS, RCENTAGES)1870 'ee100o CF.NTRAL IUSINESS DISTRICT MIDRANT COMMUNITY' - MIORAnoM8G ·GSource: Johnston, 1971, p. 110-114

188 Papers in Jewish Demography 19932.A conservative, or static, pattern with the creation of a new center (Strasbourg,Zurich). The old center is at the same location as before, and is the dominantone. A new, smaller cluster of Jewish residents develops in one of theneighborhoods at the city's edge or in a suburb. People from newly createdneighborhoods still depend on the old community center, while creating asmaller one near their new residence.3.A dynamic pattern with a strong concentration of Jews in one neighborhood istypical to Leeds, but was also found by other researchers in other EnglishJewish communities, like Manchester and London. Jews move together withtheir institutions once in 30 to 40 years along an axis leading outwards (to thenorth in many cases, in London both to the north and the east), on a leapfrogmodel, i.e. the distance between the old and new centers is considerable, andthe old neighborhoods are not adjacent to the new ones. Old synagogues,community centers and Jewish facilities close down and new ones are openedalong the residential migration axis. Residential concentration remains veryhigh. Actually, other minority groups such as the Indians and Japanese inEngland were found to have the same spatial behavior. In Leeds the Irishmmority, which was living near the Jews in Chapeltown, moved eastwards,while the Jews moved northwards. Neither in Europe nor in Vancouver was asimilar pattern found.4.Another dynamic pattern found by researchers in the United States (seeJohnston's models F-H - which he calls "Assimilation Models") was notfound in any of the cities analyzed here. According to this pattern, minorities,(including the Jewish minority) move outwards, but disperse in the firstgeneration to 2-5 new clusters, from which a further dispersion is observed inthe next generation, again breaking up the concentration. This is the maindifference between them and the English Jewish pattern, with its high degreeof spatial concentration.5.The case of Vancouver is less conservative than the continental Europeancommunities discussed here, but more than most United States communitiesresearched in the last twenty years (Johnston's model G). It is marked by aquick suburbanization, more than in Europe, with the percentage of suburbanJews growing from 24% to 42% within 15 years (1971-1986). In 1971, therewas one central residential area, but during the seventies another smaller onedeveloped in Richmond, eight kilometers to the south. Similar developmentswere found in Amsterdam/Amstelveen and to a lesser extent inZurichIWollishofen and Zurich/Brunau. The development of Vancouver ismore similar to the European pattern than to the one found in the United States,but only further studies will show whether this is a general Canadian model ora special case.Contrary to continental European patterns, the percentage of Jews residing intheir former neighborhoods .dropped quickly, while the percentage of suburban Jewsgrew much more than in Europe. In contrast to other Jewish communities in Anglo-Saxon countries, the cellcluster of Jewish residencIn all the cities analyzedcertain neighborhoods, e'concentration diminishedall the neighborhoods Iconcentration in one of 1.Europe (both the continerNo single pattern of JIresearched here had its o locations are valid for Ewpatterns can be found forThe center of gravitytotal urban population ((DellaPergola, 1989), Italhaving in 1965 the sameThis might, however be d.In Europe, the outmigthat of the general popula1The English pattern i moved faster and fartherpart of the general trend 0a consequence of detaclbetween neighborhoods gAmerican Jews, but theseThere is no typical gedifferent cities. The direcespecially on the locatineighborhoods.With most European Jebehavior, though membel'!than communities.DellaPergola, S. (1989). " Approach." In: Sct:Demography 1985.Jerusalem. pp. 303 Freedman, . (1988). 55pp.

Shimon Sternf a new center (Strasbourg,,efore, and is the dominantI develops in one of the)eople from newly createdy center, while creating a ws in one neighborhood is:searchers in other English.' Jews move together withds leading outwards (to themd the east), on a leapfrog:enters is considerable, and w ones. Old synagogues,n and new ones are opened:::oncentration remains very,e Indians and Japanese in havior. In Leeds the Irishpeltown, moved eastwards, pe nor in Vancouver was ain the United States (seemilation Models") was notg to this pattern, minorities,, but disperse in the firster dispersion is observed inentration. This is the main:lattem, with its high degreethe continental EuropeanUnited States communitieslodel G). It is marked by athe percentage of suburban)971-1986). In 1971, thereventies another smaller oneouth. Similar developmentsto a lesser extent in"elopment of Vancouver ise found in the United States,I general Canadian model or"1:entage of Jews residing inJercentage of suburban Jewswish communities in Anglo-189Saxon countries, the center stayed at the same location, and is still an importantcluster of Jewish residences.ConclusionsIn all the cities analyzed here, Jewish residents are concentrated to a high degree incertain neighborhoods, even at the end of the 20th century, although the degree ofconcentration diminished in some of the cities. Nowhere did the Jews concentrate inall the neighborhoods of a given socioeconomic level. This phenomenon ofconcentration in one of the neighborhoods of the upper middle class is typical toEurope (both the continent and England), but it exists also in North America.No single pattern of Jewish residential behavior exists. Each of the communitiesresearched here had its own pattern. Several of Johnston's models of minority grouplocations are valid for European and American Jews. In spite of the diversity, typicalpatterns can be found for certain countries.The center of gravity of the Jewish population is not identical with that of thetotal urban population of any given city. According to one source used here(DellaPergola, 1989), Italian cities might be an exception, with Milan and Torinohaving in 1965 the same center of gravity for their Jewish and general populations.This might, however be due to a statistical distortion.In Europe, the outmigration of the Jews to suburbia is essentially smaller thanthat of the general population.The English pattern is very different from the continental one: the Jews havemoved faster and farther and they moved their institutions as well. This might bepart of the general trend ofleap-frogging in Anglo-Saxon countries. It could also bea consequence of detached and semi-detached homes, which makes distancesbetween neighborhoods grow. The pattern is reminiscent of the greater mobility ofAmerican Jews, but these do not retain the ghetto-like concentration of residences.There is no typical geographical direction for Ute outmigrations of the Jews indifferent cities. The direction depends on the unique character of each city, andespecially on the location of the higher middle and upper-class residentialneighborhoods.With most European Jews, religious observance is irrelevant to spati

inconsistent in methods, in the definitions of "Who is a Jew?", and in the time span researched. Some of the papers about the behavior of ethnic or religious minorities call the neighborhoods in which these minorities used to settle "Ghettoes", especially if the settlers were newcomers