Talk:List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto

message: Per the deletion discussion, the article should include only heritage-designated buildings and structures, rather than every building before 1950.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it would have to be changed to "List of Heritage buildings in Toronto". I don't think the size is a problem, but if you want to shorten it, use the depression of '29 as the cut off point. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: A list of heritage-designated buildings and structures could make for an excellent and useful article. This list, however, is entitled "oldest buildings and structures", which can also be an interesting and useful article but not necessarily the same article. By my count, there are about 175 pre-Canadian Confederation buildings on this list (not counting the "Lost buildings and structures of Old York"). The list of City-designated heritage properties (those with a by-law number on the list) seems to be a great deal longer than that and City FAQ says there are 4500 designated properties but that might include things that would not be considered a building or structure. An interesting thing to know would be if all the "oldest" buildings are designated heritage and, if so, up to what year? DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I disagree with Johnny's suggestion, although I agree with his motivation/intent.  The fact remains that the designation process in the City of Toronto is a bit haphazard.  Over the years, due to a chronic lack of resources, the City has had a tendency to designate properties in response to development pressures or demolition applications, rather than as part of a concerted and planned effort to designate all worthy buildings.  Second, sometimes the City lists properties, rather than designates them - again largely due to resources.  Third, some historic properties are not designated individually, but are protected instead by being part of a heritage conservation district.  Finally, the City used to have a practice where it would sometimes enter into a heritage easement agreement with the owner, but wouldn't necessarily also designate the property -- they've started to clean that up, but there are still some anomolies out there (e.g. the College Wing at College and University - now part of the MaRS complex, wasn't designated until 2007, decades after it was first identified for heritage protection). In an effort to have some meaningful inclusion criteria for this list, my inclination would be to do the following:1. Limit the list to buildings that have their own Wikipedia article.   If an older building is eliminated from the list but is sufficiently notable, an article can be created later on and the building can be restored to the list.  We should, however, maintain a list here on the talk page of removed entries that might qualify for their own articles, and we should make note of that list over at WikiProject Toronto. 2. If there is a desire to have a "cut-off" date, I would suggest that Confederation is too early for such a young city in which most of its landmark heritage buildings date from after 1867.  Any cut-off we pick is going to be arbitrary - however, I would suggest that 1934 is perhaps a little less arbitrary than any other date (I'm only 5 years off Pwnage8's suggestion of 1929).  1934 was the centennial of Toronto's incorporation -- if we use it as a cut-off, then the list incorporates those buildings dating from Toronto's first 100 years, and anything before.  It seems like a good place to stop the list.Just one more point -- although I do not think heritage designations are necessarily the bext criteria for inclusion in this list, a category for heritage properties in Toronto would be nice.  There is such a category on the Commons.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Minor point regarding the first criterion: the oldest building in Toronto, Scadding Cabin (which, being the first, I would call notable), does not have its own web page but it does have its own section within a larger page Exhibition_Place#The_Scadding_Cabin. Hilmar (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  I disagree with requiring an article. That would take a great deal of the advantage of having a list over a category and be harmful in that the list would be designed to have gaps in its order. There can be sufficient reliable sources for including a building/structure on this list but not sufficient to have an article on it. I maintain that a list of the oldest buildings and structures is a good subject for an article but leaving out particular buildings would harm the usefulness of the list. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't really agree with that (I think all entries would either qualify for an article, or as an entry in a larger article - such as the Scadding Cabin article noted above by Hilmar).  Having said that, I don't feel particularly strongly about this point, and would happily defer to you on it in an effort to err on the side of inclusion and to reach consensus.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to shorten list 

message: Which cut off year should we use?  Here are the suggestions so far:
* 1850 : (no specific event)
* 1867 : Canadian Confederation
* 1884 : Toronto semi-centennial of incorporation
* 1893 : Toronto centennial of establishment (as York)
* 1899 : Last year of 18th century
* 1900 : First year of 19th century
* 1904 : Great Toronto Fire
* 1929 : Beginning of economic depression
* 1934 : Toronto centennial of incorporation
* 1943 : Toronto sesquicentennial of establishment
* 1950 : (no specific event)
Anyone else care to add their favorite years before we try to narrow this down?  Hilmar (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, pre-1900 dates are a little too early for such a relatively young city such as Toronto.  And although any date we pick is somewaht arbitrary, I would sugest 1934 is somewhat less arbitrary as the list would then capture Toronto's first 100 years.  Using that same reasoning, 1943 would also work, as it captures Toronto's first 150 years as a settlement. They are both nice cut off points in the context of Toronto's history, more so than tying it to the Great Fire or the Depression.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what this list is for. If we want it to be a list of historic buildings in Toronto, the cut off should be later; however, I think historic is a very different thing than oldest. Buildings like City Hall and the TD Centre are unquestionably historic, though not all that old. The same applies to much older cities, such as New York, where structures like the Seagram Building are historic but not old. I would thus support a pretty early cut off, and if we want a list of historic buildings and structures in Toronto we should create that. - SimonP (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut off year... 

message: These two houses have the same address:
 Geary House "Caverhill" - 1855 - 124 Park Road
 Davis House             - 1857 - 124 Park Road
Can anyone correct or clarify?  Hilmar (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spotting. The City Heritage listing has both names referring to the same place, and the 1857 date. - SimonP (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  124 Park Road has two entries 

message: The church is listed as constructed in 1848.  The wiki page and church's own website show the structure currently in use was built in 1872.  Is the original church that was built in 1848 still in existance or should the entry be moved?Goldnpuppy (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry in this page should reflect the year built of the current building.  Please move it to the right spot.  Hilmar (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knox Church 

message: I'm not sure why this list contains this section.  What does it have to do with the objective of the main list?  What is the inclusion criteria?  Are we going to list every demolished building of note (a very long list)?  The section seems misplaced in this article.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good thing you brought this up because it does seem aimless right now. There's merit in noting important heritage buildings that the city has lost because they were evidence of the city's character and achievements at a particular moment in time that is now lost. What belongs on such a list in the context of this article, however, is hard to delineate. I would suggest significant landmarks and public buildings of early Toronto, since this article is a list of oldest buildings and structures. A.Roz (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that there is value to such a list, I am not sure why it belongs here.  Significant lost buildings aren't even necessarily all from early Toronto.  Second, "significant landmarks and public buildings" is a pretty subjective and nebulous criterion.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a separate article for lost buildings (but for each entry, there should be a one-paragraph rationale for inclusion).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, Johnny.  Lists are usually more helpful if sourced and if they contain substantive information about the entries.  But I'm still at a loss about what the criteria for inclusion would be.  The only criterion that I think could work is sufficiently notable that it could have its own WP article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. It's decent content, but it doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps a list of demolished buildings in Toronto? - SimonP (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the lost buildings belong in the article Simon Pulsifer suggested (but with rationale of course).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I am started to sound like a broken record, however, when I say that List of demolished buildings in Toronto has the potential to be an unmanageable list, with or without rationales.  What is the criteria for inclusion?  And that criteria should inform the title of the new list. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Why 1900?  Some of Toronto's great buildings (the old Toronto Star building, Chorley Park, etc.) would end up being excluded.  I'm not a fan of using a date cut-off, because it's completely arbitrary.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is no need for a date cut off. For pages without Wikipedia articles, I think that as long as you can get some third party reference to the building having some notability that should suffice. - SimonP (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The cutoff date is used to prevent newer buildings from being included.  I was thinking that structures before the end of the Second World War, as well as destroyed structures that have reliable third-party sources, would be much more inclusive than my original proposition, yet not including structures that are much more recently constructed (but destroyed later on, such as with Hurricane Hazel in 1954).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, why so arbitrary?  Either the list is of significant demolished buildings in Toronto, or it is not.  Why would we exclude such buildings like the Bata Building from the list?  I'm not sure what a cut-off date achieves.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a list of every demolished building that is notable (with reliable sources) then?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's right.  Any building that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria (and therefore has its own article, or would be eligible for its own article) and for which the entry is properly sourced in accordance with WP:V.  Perhaps the title could be List of notable demolished buildings in Toronto (subject to your thoughts).  Does someone want to take first crack at setting up the new list?  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost buildings 

message: This subsection is for the discussion of the criteria for inclusion.
I believe that for starters, include buildings that have separate Wikipedia articles and are constructed before 1900, but are demolished.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 19:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why 1900?  Some of Toronto's great buildings (the old Toronto Star building, Chorley Park, etc.) would end up being excluded.  I'm not a fan of using a date cut-off, because it's completely arbitrary.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is no need for a date cut off. For pages without Wikipedia articles, I think that as long as you can get some third party reference to the building having some notability that should suffice. - SimonP (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The cutoff date is used to prevent newer buildings from being included.  I was thinking that structures before the end of the Second World War, as well as destroyed structures that have reliable third-party sources, would be much more inclusive than my original proposition, yet not including structures that are much more recently constructed (but destroyed later on, such as with Hurricane Hazel in 1954).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, why so arbitrary?  Either the list is of significant demolished buildings in Toronto, or it is not.  Why would we exclude such buildings like the Bata Building from the list?  I'm not sure what a cut-off date achieves.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a list of every demolished building that is notable (with reliable sources) then?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's right.  Any building that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria (and therefore has its own article, or would be eligible for its own article) and for which the entry is properly sourced in accordance with WP:V.  Perhaps the title could be List of notable demolished buildings in Toronto (subject to your thoughts).  Does someone want to take first crack at setting up the new list?  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for inclusion

message: See here: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=87316#p87316
Someone on Wikipediocracy suggested that the article be renamed "List of pre-1920 buildings and structures in Toronto" as it is a more reflective name for the article.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request to [[List of pre-1920 buildings and structures in Toronto]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927165359/http://www.archtoronto.org/archives/Timeline.htm to http://www.archtoronto.org/archives/Timeline.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927174947/http://www.heritagetoronto.org/discover-toronto/map/plaque/st-johns-norway to http://www.heritagetoronto.org/discover-toronto/map/plaque/st-johns-norway
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706192713/http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_8858_1.html to http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_8858_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071104233918/http://www.estatesofsunnybrook.com/main/history.shtml to http://www.estatesofsunnybrook.com/main/history.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So I was just wondering if anyone would be interested in revisiting the conversation of shortening this list. A lot of the previous discussions occurred when the page used to cover a much wider field of things (lost buildings, when it was more geared as a heritage buildings). I honestly don't really have a proposal for a cutoff year, but I sorta feel like going all the way to 1919 is a bit excessive for a list of "oldest buildings". I mean, as of now, were covering 124 years of buildings here (like at some point, old stops being the oldest). Leventio (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not shorten it.  I like the long list and 100 years old seems like an appropriate cut off for this city.  The only question is, should we stop at 1919 or have a sliding date (ie next year we add buildings from 1920)? Hilmar (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I would limit it to 100 years of buildings or some fixed number of buildings. Toronto grew really fast in the early 1900s. Alaney2k (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd personally be in favour of establishing a cut-off of 100 years from the oldest surviving structure (so 1795 to 1895/1900, which covers a large number of buildings already). That said, I'm not opposed to maintaining the 1919 cuf-off (its really only another 19 years from what I think is appropriate... though I'd obviously be in favour of trimming the article down). Honestly, the concern I really have is that this article might be creeping into WP:DIRECTORYism . Leventio (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List length  

message: Just a quick heads up, but I added several headers notifying users of the page's present problems (namely the lack of inline refs, and the usage of inappropriate sources (i.e. Wikipedia), or unreliable sources (i.e. source 18, as its a site anyone can edit, and thus unreliable as seen by past verification attempts of early 19th century structures). Leventio (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article format 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion