Talk:Brockton Village

Canada: Toronto / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Southern Boundaries Seem Confused

Given the current location of Queen Street, Dundas Street, Wright Avenue and Roncesvalles Avenue I have a lot of difficulty understanding how these streets could comprise a Southern boundary for Brockton village, as indicated in the first paragraph.

Could someone please clarify this? I have heard that Wrigth Avenue was the Southern boundary for Brockton village. This is included in the entry for Roncesvalles village with discussion on the talk page.

Thanks.

The effective southern boundary of Brockton was the railway after it was built in the 1850s.JosephIWMolto (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

I certainly hope that a lot more will be added about this article as Brockton has a rich history (I may try a little if I have the time) but the statement about using Dundas to avoid tolls on Lake Shore sounds unlikely to me as I know there were tolls on Dundas as well. Dundas was simply the main highway and had bridges built along it while, at points along Lake Shore, a ferry was still necessary; I don't believe there was ever a time when there were tolls on Lake Shore and not on Dundas.JosephIWMolto (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Brockton also existed long before the 1870s and Col O'Hara subdivided his land.[reply]

Just referring to the local stretch. The stretch from Queen up today's Ossington then west was toll-free when it was built. The town of Parkdale build a stretch of King Street also to avoid toll along the lakeshore. Dundas highway itself reached further west and there were many tolls. The village was developed to avoid Toronto taxes and laws. Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's entirely true, Brockton developed like most early villages along the highways (Kingston, Dundas, Yonge) because of travellers using early inns (there were three in early Brockton commonly called the 'Apii Forum'). the stretch from Queen up Ossington and along Dundas to Dufferin was an anomaly running through the Denison estates but Toronto's border actually was at Dufferin itself hence Brockton's development just west of Dufferin (and the inns). Inns were generally built for travellers to stop at just before or after passing through the toll gates (which closed at night). The tollgate at Brockton was not at Dufferin but rather at Bloor and Dundas. Brockton came into being because it was near a tollgate, not because it avoided them which is very different from Parkdale's history for example, thats why I felt this was important.JosephIWMolto (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into it and don't believe Col. O'Hara ever owned land in what became Brockton (the northern boundary of his land was Brockton which already existed when he arrived). Also, apart from the toll-gate at Dundas and Bloor, there was another on the east side of Brockton, east of Brock Street just before you arrived at Toronto; far from being a way to avoid toll-gates, Brockton was surrounded by them (hence all the hotels). Also about the dating, Brockton already had a name and a small centre by 1840 (I am looking into the earlier development) and already included new subdivided land on the 1852 Atlas for York County.JosephIWMolto (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

Street signs in Brockton say 'Village of Brockton' today but (I am sure this is a surprise to many) it is not being treated as a neighbouhood at the moment by the City of Toronto (and therefore by Wikipedia) although the city has a habit of changing neighbourhood names, choosing bad names etc. As a historical article the title "Brockton Town" or such like may be more appropiate as that is what it ended its days as?JosephIWMolto (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The city put up these signs and the parkdale ones about twenty years ago to mark various heritage dates. You can see similar ones in other areas, for example Corktown. A title like Brockton (Village), Ontario works for me. Alaney2k (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You argue that we should treat this area as a modern neighbouhood (use a modern name rather than its last correct name). I don't have a problem with that it just seems that Wikipedia is trying to stick to the neighbourhoods currently defined by the City of Toronto (although admittedly they change a great deal and the city itself is a model of inconsistency as this example proves!) and you yourself seemed to be doing the opposite when you moved the section containing modern references to the name Brockton Village (which you point out is still in use). I wasn't wild about the content but it was specifically about 'Brockton Village' not Little Italy or Dufferin Grove. It just seems we need to sort out a consistent way of dealing with it. In favour of your treating this as a current neighbouhood with a current name different from its last legal name, 'Brockton Village' is listed/linked to in the neighbourhoods of Old Toronto section at the bottom of each neighbourhood page although the surrounding neighbourhoods don't link to it. 'Brockton Village' is treated the same as a BIA name by the City of Toronto and I though Wikipedia didn't want those names? There are so many inconsistencies like this with the Toronto neighbourhood articles all over the city.JosephIWMolto (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a Brockton Village BIA that I know of. This is the earlier, pre-merger City of Toronto that put up the signs in the area. You can see the Parkdale and Brockton ones at various intersections. There is no Wiki policy that I know of that we have to follow the City slavishly. But there is a policy to have articles rooted in references, reliable sources. This is possible with the City-defined neighbourhoods. There are lots of articles in the media and on the net about neighbourhoods. A lot of people identify with the BIA names, but the BIAs provide no data or reliable information for the sake of a Wiki article. Whereas the City does, with demographics and census data. In Toronto, we seem to have three categories, the City neighbourhoods (both historical and current), business areas and geographic areas that all seem to be lumped into neighbourhoods. There are not a lot of editors working on Toronto articles, but we have most of the City-defined neighbourhoods covered. Alaney2k (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we shouldn't try to follow the City of Toronto's definitions slavishly (which can often be impossible). I just thought that as a historian I might be able to help with the history of this area but it isn't clear to me where to add it and how it should be divided up. You still seem on the one hand to treat this area as a defunct municipality (moving some of the content specifically about 'modern' 'Brockton' to one of the modern neighbourhoods) and on the other hand to want to use a 'modern' name for it (today's City of Toronto doesn't consider this a neighbourhood at the moment but rather treats it as if it were a BIA name such as on its maps at the Urban Affairs Library in Metro Hall). Not that I really care about it, I have always called Brockton 'Brockton Village' and am very familiar with it (although there are few parts of the city I am not familiar with, except most of Scarborough!). Forget the whole name issue, I just thought that to learn what the general template is for local neighbourhoods can help me understand what I might be able to add. It seems to me the big inconsistency about naming Toronto neighbourhoods is actually whether they should be just their old/original name (only possible for former municipalities I think) or X, Toronto (or X, (Toronto), X (Toronto) or even X, Ontario etc) which would solve this particular issue but the more I look at it the more I see the lack of consistency and I think I will just leave it alone! There is a big discrepancy between neighbourhoods that are very important to understanding Ontario History (for school projects, politics, general Toronto History, genealogy etc.) and others which are modern constructions of the City of Toronto (sometimes little recognised locally, some have been frequently changed by the city and some cover older areas that do have history under another name)JosephIWMolto (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JosephIWMolto I completely agree that the article is confusing because it's covering two distinct entities: the former village of Brockton that was amalgamated into the city in 1888 and the current neighbourhood known as Brockton Village located within a small part of the former village. Alaney2k, if it's okay with you I'd like to edit the article to make this distinction clear as well as point out the distinction between the unofficial neighbourhood boundaries as published by Your Guide to Toronto Neighbourhoods (i.e. the source of your map) and the overlaying boundaries of the city's official Little Portugal and Dufferin Grove neighbourhoods. And as a house historian and new resident of Brockton Village I have a lot more history that I can add to the article, including the information JosephIWMolto mentions.Peter Marshall (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]