Talk:List of neighbourhoods in Toronto

message: Don't people think some of these neighborhoods are too small to show up on any map of Toronto? Maybe we should consolidate. 69.158.173.251 09:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many?

message: Sorry, I've lived in Toronto my whole life and have never heard of an area called Broadview. I've edited it, if you can tell me where this area is, I'd be more than happy to let it stand. User:Nlsanand
:I'm sorry for the caps but, ARE YOU SERIOUS? Never? Look at the subway map. Look at the stop east of Castle Frank. Of course, perhaps you do know about Broadview, but are trying to say that there is no such neighbourhood, which I cannot verify. AAK 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadview

message: I'd like to request that someone write a Corso Italia (Toronto neighbourhood) article. I've already requested it in the "official" place, but I figured it couldn't hurt to put the request here too, since someone who might be interested in writing it might see it here. --Trovatore 03:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Corso Italia

message: Lawrence Parks is listed twice, once in "north end" (Old City) and again in North York.  It is most definitely north end of the old city...  the borders with North York fall outside the neighbourhood.  I've deleted the duplicate.  (The northern border of the old city was at the top of the descent into Hoggs Hollow, missing Lawrence park by almost 1km.  The eastern border (in this area) crossed Lawrence Ave halfway down the hill between Wanless Crescent and Mildenhall Road... which means that the border was just barely outside the boundaries of Lawrence Park.)   Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawrence Park 

message: I made the following comment on the Toronto discussion page, but perhaps it's more relevant here:
It would be good if some group effort could be put into building some unity and agreement in the Toronto Neighbourhood pages. Some of the information ends up being contradictory; for instance, on the Bloor Street page Portugal Village is listed as a community; however, the Portugal Village page says that the community is bound by Bathurst, Dundas, Queen and Trinity Bellwoods Park. This area doesn't include Bloor, so perhaps it shouldn't be listed as a community on Bloor St. I decided to start a discussion here, since it seems to me that agreement between the Toronto neighbourhood pages is a general issue.
Is there another place where this issue should be mentioned?--Stetson 04:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreement in the Neighbourhood pages

message: Check out the "Old Mill" link.  This may confuse people because it links to an article that has nothing to do with the Old Mill community in Toronto.  Are there other links like this one?
:Good catch - I've cleaned it up, and it appears there may be others too. This will need to be cleaned up. Mindmatrix 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I'm not sure we need to add hundreds of "neighborhoods" based on http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/profiles_map_and_index.htm - maybe I've not been around Toronto enough, but most of these places I've never heard of. A lot of them seem to require db-context tags, But if we do have them, I think they need to be written differently. Many have been tagged as requiring a rewrite already - as they are not Wiki style. --Brat32 00:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many neighbourhoods 

message: This article erroneously refers to the old city as downtown. I think very few people would argue that Lawrence Park, the Beaches, Corso Italia or Bloor West Village are part of "downtown Toronto."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.85.120 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "downtown" is inside the brackets. Johnny Au (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: That's what I was getting at, although it's not so much that this is an older part of Toronto, as that it has not been as developed in the 20th century as the land west of Yonge Street has, and as a result, it tends to have older buildings preserved.  However, I don't think the link you provided is going to add much weight.  For one thing, it calls the area "Old Town Toronto", not "Old Toronto".  For another, the website is called OldToronto1793, which makes me think it's somebody's privately registered corporation (as in "Ontario corporation #..." though I can't find anywhere on the site which actually says this; their "about us" page doesn't really say who or what they are!), and it doesn't prove that this name is widely accepted, or was ever an official name.  I'm still inclined to change all WP references from "Old Toronto" to "Old city of Toronto" and make it clear that this isn't an official name... but I don't have time to plan it out right now. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Toronto (1967-1997)" rather than Old Toronto, since Old Toronto is very ambiguous, while my suggestion specifies Toronto's boundaries from 1967 to 1997?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks confusing; the intent of the date range is not clear, and we are looking for a name to call this area at the present time.  Also, the boundaries changed sometime in mid 1998, so the end of the range would be 1998. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is another idea: there is a link earlier on this talk page to a Toronto business assoication which calls the area "central".  So here we have a semi-official name for it.  There is a conflict in that our page divides the area into 4 unofficial divisions, one of which is "Downtown Core (Central)".  I'm not sure there is a need to divide it into 4 sections, and declaring one section as "north end (the southern portion is also referred to as Midtown)" is also questionable.  If we're going to change the name, we might consider doing away with the 4 sub-sections at the same time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems most editors agree the name has got to change, so how about renaming it Toronto, Ontario (former) for now, or something along those lines (have Toronto, Ontario in the title to keep it consisten with Scarborough, Ontario; York, Ontario; North York, Ontario, etc.)  and presumably we can continue to discuss other possible naming conventions for these former-municipality-turned-super-neighbourhoods? JosephIWMolto (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Toronto (former) to be consistent with the article known simply as Toronto?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think consistency with other Toronto related articles is important but I absolutely agree Toronto (former) is better than Old Toronto and consistent with Toronto.  Does anyone object? JosephIWMolto (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Toronto and "Downtown" are not the same thing! 

message: What are the borders of the old neighbourhoods of Harwood and Syme? Rockcliffe-Smythe does not define them in very exact terms I could draw on a map to understand them.--Sonjaaa (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The City demographics does not mention them. Maybe there are neighbourhood associations you could look up. Alaney2k (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Harwood and Syme?

message: Based on the earlier conversations here and the talk at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Toronto_neighbourhoods I've begun a partial reworking of this page. There are two types of neighbourhood listed here. One are the unofficial city designated neighbouhoods and the other are the neighbourhoods used in common parlance. I feel we need to make clear that these are two distinct and only sometimes overlapping things. I've thus started a separate table for the city designated neighbourhoods with information describing what these areas are called in common usage. For common usage my main reference is the new Toronto Star neighbourhood map. - SimonP (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Two types of neighbourhood

message: Just found that Statistics Canada also seems to keep lists of neighbouhoods. The full list of the ones in Toronto can be found here. I haven't been able to find a map though. This list seems wholly separate from the city of Toronto one. It also seems to be used by other federal entities such as Canada Post and Elections Canada. - SimonP (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those lists are part of the Standard Geographical Classification system used by StatsCan. It's useful, but has its own problems. For example, its listing for King contains Clearview Heights and Kingscross Estates, two residential areas which are in no way "neighbourhoods", and King City Airport, which was an area around a now-defunct airport which consists of a building contractor and a few homes. I'm not sure how the list was generated, but you'll probably have to do some pruning from it. Aside: StatsCan updates the list with each new census, though not for every CSD. Here's the list for King for 1996 and 2001. (Oddly, they removed the valid entry "Hammertown" from the list in 2001.) Mindmatrix 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use a list of neighbourhoods that have clearly defined boundaries, rather than those that change every census/election year to prevent constant page moves.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that in reality neighbourhoods don't have clearly defined boundaries and the borders do shift over time. This is why I think we should combine as many sources as possible to try and determine what actual common usage is. This will create some neighbourhoods that overlap and have ambiguous boundaries, but they do so in real life too. We just need to make that clear in the articles. - SimonP (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the city actually keeps two entirely different maps of Toronto neighbouhoods. As well as the one used for demographics, there is another detailed map of neighbourhoods that they have created. - SimonP (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

text: There are business improvement areas and neighbourhoods in that map. It is a poor choice. E.g. Bloor West Village name originated in the BIA. However, if we want to write an article about the neighbourhood, then the neighbourhood is Runnymede-Bloor West Village. Runnymede is between the Junction and the BWV BIA, which also encompasses the north and south side of the streets. The information about census, demographics by the City is defined that way as Runnymede-BWV. This issue will probably never be fixed 100% as the City will redefine things. But, we should stay with the City officially-defined ones. External ones such as Stats Can are purely for their uses. The naming gets disputed regularly as people come along and 'drive-by'. And we should not deviate from the City list without discussion. Alaney2k (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of different maps of Toronto neighbourhoods, including two different city ones, neither of which are in any way "official". Of the various maps, the one the city uses for demographics reports is by far the worst. Many of the communities on it are never used in common parlance (e.g. Woodbine Corridor) and many well known neighbourhoods are excluded (e.g. Leslieville). Wikipedia policy is to go by common usage, and all the other maps seem to much more closely reflect this than the demographics one. - SimonP (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The City demographics one correlates to information we can use in articles about those areas. That's the articles I've been creating, and for that reason, so we can discuss things like income, cultural groups and first languages. There will never be 100% agreement on this, but I'm trying to build on a solid foundation. Alaney2k (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we really suggest using only the city demographic neighbourhoods? Are we going to merge Cabbagetown and St. James Town? The Annex and Yorkville? Everything along the waterfront into "Waterfront Communities-The Island?" At the moment only a minority of our neighbourhood articles have any bearing on the demographics map, which is how it should be. We should stick to Wikipedia policy and go by common usage. It is more complex, but it will also be far more reflective of the actual city. - SimonP (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not. The List of neighbourhoods is pretty organic. The Star reflects this, but it is not backed up by any data. If we want to write about an Star-defined area, where do we get the data? A lot of the Star areas are Star readers' suggestions. I would not say that Algonquin Island is a different neighbourhood than Ward's Island. I can't speak or write well about areas outside of the area around High Park, but in those areas, I do have some experience. I can remember before Bloor West Village and all of the other BIAs. We need to be independent of those. We need to be independent of real estate boards. A lot are purely artificial. I have no objection to articles about BIA and immediate neighbourhoods, if there is something notable, but if we want to write well about an area/neighbourhood, then we want to refer to the reliable source. I live near Little Portugal. It overlaps with Brockton and Parkdale. That's the way it goes. But if I want to write about the portuguese area in Toronto, the City gives me that info. I can back that up with a ref. What is the boundary of Bloor West Village? There is -none-. It is the businesses along Bloor officially' from X street to Y street. Real estate boards have turned the whole area into BWV for sales purposes. Anything more is unofficial. The PDF map you cite does not have streets for the boundaries. What do we do? I apologize for not paying earlier attention to your work, but you reached into my area and my watchlist only recently. Alaney2k (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bloor West Village Residents Association has a very specific set of boundaries: "from the east side of Jane Street to the west side of Quebec Avenue and from the north side of Bloor Street to the south side of Annette Street."  This is the residents association, not the BIA or a real estate board. That definition seems pretty easy to follow. If we want demographics for that area we can just go to StatsCan and pull up the report on Toronto Census Tract 104.00, which has those same boundaries. All of this can easily be referenced. I very much agree that there are cases like Brockton where it overlaps with Little Portugal, and I see no reason not to have articles on both and to clearly explain the overlap within them. - SimonP (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the boundary between Little Italy and Portugal Village?  If a resident lived on Palmerston Avenue halfway between College and Dundas, is that house in Little Italy or in Portugal Village?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be, and is in common usage, considered both. According to the Star, city Hoods.pdf, and Toronto Neighbourhoods.net that area is part of Little Italy. According to the demographics map, and The Toronto Public Library one it is part of Trinity Bellwoods. Our articles should thus reflect this. This is easy to do, for instance I recently added a new map to The Annex that uses different colours to show the diverging definitions. - SimonP (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To explain where I am coming from with all this, I come from the eastern part of the city. Between the Don and Victoria Park the city map has pretty much no relevance to what those neighbourhoods are called by locals. The only community that has borders close to common usage is the Beaches. Other common titles such as Leslieville, the Upper Beaches, and the Port Lands do not appear at all. Instead the area is filled with concatenations like "Greenwood-Coxwell" and "Woodbine Corridor" that I have never once seen used in reality. - SimonP (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To add yet another map to the mix TOBuilt would also place it in Little Italy - SimonP (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about matching Wiki to whatever people or web sites say. It's about being able to write about an area coherently. If it was just what people say, then we would be changing after every real estate development or new BIA. You can note the various sayings, but you need to back it up with reliable sources. The City demographics is a good basis for writing articles. How do you even back up what the locals say? Much more difficult. Alaney2k (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about for most neighbourhood articles, there would be maps that show divergent boundaries, such as the article on The Annex?  For example, the resident on Palmerston Avenue would look at both Little Italy and Trinity-Bellwoods articles and see maps of both and conclude that he/she lives in both Little Italy and Portugal Village (if their boundaries were expanded across each other).  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I've finished putting together such maps for most of the East Toronto neighbourhoods. (The Beaches, Upper Beaches, East Danforth, Greektown, Riverdale, Leslieville, and the Port Lands) By my count we now have six different maps of Toronto neighbourhoods. In most cases five of the six pretty much agree, the demographics map being the one exception. Where the maps disagree I've used a lighter colour of blue to indicate that an area is not always included in a neighbourhood. With the six different maps, plus extra sources such as residence associations and media reports, we should be able to pretty comprehensively present the different options. By drawing on a diversity of sources our content will in the end be much more accurate and useful. - SimonP (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another list of neighbourhoods

message: Any objections to adding locator maps to the bottom of neighbourhood map illustrations in the neighbourhood articles. See the Parkdale, Toronto article as an example. For the smaller ones, we can use a circle around the green area. ʘ alaney2k talkʘ 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. There is a page with all of the ones that exist here. What would be ideal is two map sections in the infobox, one for the locator map and one for a street map. Both are useful in finding where a neighbourhood is. - SimonP (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locator maps 

message: I'm born and bred in Toronto, have an longstanding interest in vernacular architect, and am a practising architect. I also drove taxi for a few years when in university, and was a spare letter carrier before attending university. As a result I have a fairly good mental image of the architectural styles of buildings in the city, and the architecture of York and East York are not predominantly 'bay and gable' style buildings.
Firstly, these neighborhoods post-date that style by over twenty years, though there are some exceptions of course. East York, where I sit and have lived now for  almost twenty years is most notable for the preponderance of 'Craftsman Style' or 'Bungalow Style' houses built in the 1920's, especially towards the south, and by 'Victory Cottage' style buildings to the north, built a couple decades later. Transitional construction lies between these extremities.
I'm far less familiar with York, but from memory I would say that the architecture is more like northern East York in age, but more dense with many full second stories. You certainly don't commonly see 'bay and gable' buildings in either area.Michael Bulatovich (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: York mainly consists of bungalows and semi-detached houses, as well as triplexes that replaced certain bungalows, especially in Oakwood-Vaughan.  However, there are no bay-and-gable houses in that former municipality.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the statement about bay-and-gable houses to the former city of Toronto.  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that passage was in error. Good for catching it. - SimonP (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Architectural description of York and East York 

message: I've made a proposal for the title for the article Toronto (former). I see there was a discussion about this above but please see Talk:Toronto (former) for my thoughts on the title. EelamStyleZ (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of "Old Toronto"

message: Seeing that there's an article for Little Tibet, Toronto, it would be great to create an article called Little Japan, Toronto.
The neighbourhood is located at Dundas and Bay (between the Discovery District and the Financial District and between Chinatown/Baldwin Village/Grange Park and Downtown Yonge).
Here's a source to get started: http://www.thestar.com/amp/life/2016/05/11/japanese-influence-is-seeping-into-downtown-toronto.html
Note that it is not as much original research now as it was even a few years ago, since it is among Toronto's newest ethnic enclaves.
What do you think?  Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Japan 

message: On April 12, 2022, the City of Toronto officially split some neighbourhoods for social planning purposes.  (See city website.)  For example, Woburn, Toronto was split into North Woburn and Golfdale-Cederbrae-Woburn.  Should we make updates across the topic to reflect these changes?  For that matter, should we have a strategy for treating the varied and overlapping historical, cultural, ethnic and economic neighbourhoods? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; done based on City of Toronto]. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates?