How visible are the boundaries between the former Metro municipalities today?

[marcus_a_j]

I remember the North York signs (“The City With A Heart”) when crossing Vic Park.

 

[Jonny5]

Compared to former Hamilton-Wentworth as an example, the Metro cities were never well defined and never had much of an identity. No traditional downtowns as they simply developed as extensions of Toronto. And street names and address numbering were Metro-wide and ignored municipal boundaries.

You certainly don't see signs like this in Toronto:

View attachment 374736

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

I think the existence of "identity" for a named place is too complex in the minds of people to verify with a simplistic test as to whether it has a downtown or a border sign to be real. I actually think those don't matter at all, and I say that speaking as someone who grew up in Hamilton and never really saw much or any distinction between it and Stoney Creek, both on and off the mountain, even when they were separate.

What actually matters are the social and cultural dynamics you experience, especially growing up, which are impacted by many things from government to geography to class and race.

Scarborough was Scarborough. It was not ever Toronto and in many ways it still is not today. Ever watch the news in the 80's? "Shooting in Scarborough" was the headline vs. "Shooting at Yonge & Dundas." There was very much a very defined Scarborough identity, and while crime was the one you would see on the local news, it was played out in a very much different ways for different people, especially those involved in local organisations which started/stopped at Victoria Park.

That's part of the reason even the NHL still notes players are from Scarborough, not Toronto, because that is how those players identify themselves to this day, as playing for Scarborough youth hockey.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Sometimes, unfortunately only sometimes, they include the old village name in street signs. From various sources...

Would like to see the old unincorporated and incorporporate villages and towns on the street signs, to identify them as neighbourhoods. See link.

 

[adma]

That certainly doesn't evoke a notion of being a city limits!

Compared to former Hamilton-Wentworth as an example, the Metro cities were never well defined and never had much of an identity. No traditional downtowns as they simply developed as extensions of Toronto. And street names and address numbering were Metro-wide and ignored municipal boundaries.

You certainly don't see signs like this in Toronto:

Well, you did see signs for "the boroughs" prior to amalgamation. But one thing to keep in mind is that the cities were formerly boroughs which were formerly townships, not cities or towns, and thus always had a "vaporous" identity--and until the Regional Municipalities of the 1970s and the mega-amalgamations of the 1990s, townships did not tend to have those kinds of "place signs". The "Stoney Creek" above is, I presume, for Stoney Creek Village, which is distinct from the amalgamated municipality of the 1970s. Its equivalent would be, as mentioned, places like Mimico or Weston or Forest Hill--or even Agincourt or Thistletown or Highland Creek. Mississauga didn't have a sign back when it was Toronto Township--though the places within did, the Cooksvilles and Erindales as well as the incorporated Port Credits and Streetsvilles. Once part of Metro, the townships *did* take on "sign identity", which was reinforced when they became boroughs in '66--but that's also when the Mimicos and Westons lost *their* sign identity, much as the Scarboroughs and North Yorks did in '97. Where such signs remained was in the still-undeveloped periphery, places like Claireville.

Seems to me that there might be younger cohorts who take the "city" concept at face value, not grasping that while some of them actually did originate as distinct city/town/village type places, others were just aggrandized townships such as Toronto's outer municipalities, Vaughan, Mississauga, etc. Really; it's like what makes Detroit different from Warren, Troy, Sterling Heights, etc...

 

[christiesplits]

I grew up in East York, but very close to the southern East York-Toronto border, which always made me feel more attached to Toronto than East York. Also, all the schools I attended were TDSB, not East York.

Despite this fact, my mom still puts “East York” on her mail. However, if you were to poll newer neighbours on her street about where they Iive, they would likely say “East end” or “The Danforth” before “East York.”

 

[Transportfan]

Well, you did see signs for "the boroughs" prior to amalgamation. But one thing to keep in mind is that the cities were formerly boroughs which were formerly townships, not cities or towns, and thus always had a "vaporous" identity--and until the Regional Municipalities of the 1970s and the mega-amalgamations of the 1990s, townships did not tend to have those kinds of "place signs". The "Stoney Creek" above is, I presume, for Stoney Creek Village, which is distinct from the amalgamated municipality of the 1970s.

Yep, I've touched on the fact that the old Metro cities/boroughs were only townships that simply grew outward from Toronto and were often seen as just Toronto by many or even most because they were part of "Metropolitan" Toronto. This was spurred on by the fact that borders were erratic and divided adjacent houses on side streets. But this concept was commonly expanded on even officially on maps and signage: For example, those city limits signs were only put up long after Metro was built up in the 1980s and promptly removed after amalgamation. Ontario road maps simply showed Metropolitan Toronto and ignored the actual cities, and signs on the 401 showed Metro and its population only.

What's funny is the mayors of the Metro cities outside Toronto created their own city centres but never mentioned the real reason why these "always-distinct" places new downtowns were ever needed in the first place.

The amalgamated 905 townships like Vaughan were equally vaporous entities, but as the Regions lacked a central city, there was no "anchor" and so people stuck to Woodbridge, Maple, Thornhill, etc.

The Stoney Creek sign was on Barton St. at the former city limits, not the actual village. Putting it in the old village would make more sense as that's where the real distinct sense of identity is actually apparent. What's really funny is there's even signs for Flamborough, which was only a rural township rather a real distinct place.

 

[adma]

Yep, I've touched on the fact that the old Metro cities/boroughs were only townships that simply grew outward from Toronto and were often seen as just Toronto by many or even most because they were part of "Metropolitan" Toronto. This was spurred on by the fact that borders were erratic and divided adjacent houses on side streets. But this concept was commonly expanded on even officially on maps and signage: For example, those city limits signs were only put up long after Metro was built up in the 1980s and promptly removed after amalgamation. Ontario road maps simply showed Metropolitan Toronto and ignored the actual cities, and signs on the 401 showed Metro and its population only.

What's funny is the mayors of the Metro cities outside Toronto created their own city centres but never mentioned the real reason why these "always-distinct" places new downtowns were ever needed in the first place.

The amalgamated 905 townships like Vaughan were equally vaporous entities, but as the Regions lacked a central city, there was no "anchor" and so people stuck to Woodbridge, Maple, Thornhill, etc.

The Stoney Creek sign was on Barton St. at the former city limits, not the actual village. Putting it in the old village would make more sense as that's where the real distinct sense of identity is actually apparent. What's really funny is there's even signs for Flamborough, which was only a rural township rather a real distinct place.

Actually, the old cities/boroughs *did* have signs long before the 1980s--I can't absolutely vouch for the pre-1966 "township" era, but they certainly did have them by the 1970s (curiously, the only Metro municipality which *didn't* have such signs was the former City of Toronto). And I can vouch for that because ***I was alive then, I was looking out the family car window, engaging to where I was going, and I took note of the signs.*** ***However***, you're correct that they weren't on the 401--but they were on municipal arteries, including the designated-highway 2's and 5's and 11's. Which is what *really* mattered. (Heck, you even found welcome-to-East-York signs on arteries like Bermondsey--though not necessarily on those residential streets N of the Danforth; *that'd* be overkill.)

And as far as Hamilton-Wentworth goes: let's remember that the mega-amalgamations of the 90s were far more of an ill-thought-out shotgun affair than the creation of Metro in the 1950s (and its evolution thereafter), or the 70s regionalization that created amalgamated Stoney Creek in the first place, or arguably even Megacity Toronto (which can at least claim to be a plausible urban continuum, rather than a county-region in city clothing) so the retention of these kinds of Stoney Creek or Flamborough signs is more deliberate as an assertion of former-municipal-identity--plus as per my 401 point, you *wouldn't* find those kinds of signs on the QEW or 403. What'd be more relevant than seeing Stoney Creek signs on Barton (presumably coming *from* Hamilton, as Barton doesn't extend as far as the Grimsby border) would be seeing them on the outer "Saltfleet Twp" periphery of the former municipality. And even there, they'd be...awkward, in a way that signs for Winona or Tapleytown wouldn't be. Ditto with Flamborough (unless it's the "Flamborough Centre" that's north of Waterdown).

 

[WislaHD]

That's part of the reason even the NHL still notes players are from Scarborough, not Toronto, because that is how those players identify themselves to this day, as playing for Scarborough youth hockey.

I don't think that was the reason. It is more-so that those players were born in Scarborough, not amalgamated Toronto (which didn't exist yet).

It is common practice to list the birthplace as the legal entity that existed at the time. E.g. if you look up Prince Philip on Wikipedia or elsewhere, it lists his birthplace as Kingdom of Greece, not Greece. If York Region were to amalgamate tomorrow, you would still list Marner's birthplace as Markham, for instance.

 

[Jonny5]

I don't think that was the reason. It is more-so that those players were born in Scarborough, not amalgamated Toronto (which didn't exist yet).

It is common practice to list the birthplace as the legal entity that existed at the time. E.g. if you look up Prince Philip on Wikipedia or elsewhere, it lists his birthplace as Kingdom of Greece, not Greece. If York Region were to amalgamate tomorrow, you would still list Marner's birthplace as Markham, for instance.

We'll have to wait and see as players born after 1999 are only just now starting in the NHL, but some already drafted and playing in the minor leagues still show Scarborough on the NHL website.

Jean-Luc Foudy Stats and News

Get all the latest stats, news, videos and more on Jean-Luc Foudy

www.nhl.com

 

[Transportfan]

If York Region were to amalgamate tomorrow, you would still list Marner's birthplace as Markham, for instance.

If they do that for a place in the former Metro you certainly would expect it in York!

I'm not sure if they would do that for all of Markham now. It might depend on the player's "sense of place"!

 

[adma]

May I ask a different question re the more inexplicable mega-amalgamations of the Harris era: how many people in Chatham-Kent list their address or place of birth, as Chatham-Kent?

 

[Towered]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[lenaitch]

May I ask a different question re the more inexplicable mega-amalgamations of the Harris era: how many people in Chatham-Kent list their address or place of birth, as Chatham-Kent?

Although it's been a while since I was born (in East York), I would imagine you are restricted to using the existing legal municipalities; otherwise I can imagine all manners of mayhem would ensure with people getting 'creative'. Your postal address is what Canada Post says it is.

 

[adma]

Although it's been a while since I was born (in East York), I would imagine you are restricted to using the existing legal municipalities; otherwise I can imagine all manners of mayhem would ensure with people getting 'creative'. Your postal address is what Canada Post says it is.

Though postal codes render at least a *bit* of that redundant--and old timers continued to use "Islington", "Weston", "Agincourt" et al for decades without consequence. (And the "Weston" postal address wasn't strictly bound to the former town; for instance, the Ford family on Weston Wood once *might have* used "Weston, Ontario".)

One thing w/Toronto's boroughs: it's best to think of them as analogous to NYC's boroughs, or maybe those of London as well (that is, sending something to London UK doesn't strictly mean sending something to the City of London, much as nobody sends stuff to "Manhattan, NY")

 

[Jonny5]

Though postal codes render at least a *bit* of that redundant--and old timers continued to use "Islington", "Weston", "Agincourt" et al for decades without consequence. (And the "Weston" postal address wasn't strictly bound to the former town; for instance, the Ford family on Weston Wood once *might have* used "Weston, Ontario".)

One thing w/Toronto's boroughs: it's best to think of them as analogous to NYC's boroughs, or maybe those of London as well (that is, sending something to London UK doesn't strictly mean sending something to the City of London, much as nobody sends stuff to "Manhattan, NY")

I had two jobs in the mid-2000's where I saw a lot of Toronto addresses as part of daily work, and "Weston" was not only accepted but turned out to be the default when you entered the postal code to search the Canada Post database. Someone told me they were 90% certain it was because the Weston area had so many duplicate street names with downtown Toronto (many now changed, but not all) that Canada Post deliberately left Weston as the default in the database all along to remove any doubt among end users (like call centre agents) they had the correct place, and also the effort to sort out even those street names which were not duplicated was too much work, so whatever was Weston in 1966 was still Weston in 2006, and not Toronto.