Talk:List of the oldest buildings in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

The End of this list is in sorry shape

Adding buildings to this list that were constructed in the 1760's is totally pointless, considering the fact that in Philadelphia alone there dozens of buildings that were built in the 1760s still standing. There simply isn't much noteworthy or special about a building built in the mid 18th century. I know some of the later buildings may be of significance to the local communities they stand in but they have no place in a list of the oldest buildings in America, unless someone wanted to fill in the holes and add the roughly 100s buildings that are older than the Indian Castle Church to this list. By having these later buildings in this list without including the others that were built before them it makes this list seem inaccurate. I know it states the list is incomplete but it leads you to believe that the Indian Castle Church is around the 50th oldest building in the United States when it closer to the 500th oldest building in the united states. That's a BIGGGG difference.

Also some pretty big omissions here. Independence Hall anyone?

Again I understand it's incomplete but as it stands this is just a terrible article and I would suggest getting rid of all the structures listed after 1700 because of the totally inadequate nature of this part of the article, it can be brought back when a more presentable list is in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.123.72 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wyckoff houses

I am confused between Wyckoff-Bennett Homestead and Pieter Claesen Wyckoff#Wyckoff Farmhouse Museum and there is another Wyckoff house or two. These need to be described and linked to one another. doncram (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Help inserting new reference

Can someone please put the following article in the references:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DPieter%2BClaesen%2BWyckoff%2Bhouse%26vc%3D%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fp_ip%3DCA&w=180&h=155&imgurl=www.newsday.com%2Fmedia%2Fthumbnails%2Fphoto%2F2003-07%2F8583050.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsday.com%2Fcommunity%2Fguide%2Flihistory%2Fny-history-hs363a%2C0%2C6961090.story%3Fcoll%3Dny-lihistory-navigation&size=10.8kB&name=8583050.jpg&p=Pieter+Claesen+Wyckoff+house&type=JPG&oid=782c44b361555e6a&no=10&tt=12&sigr=13fm99dks&sigi=11qai8ddk&sigb=13v5mk8ko

It is a great piece with some houses not on the list of the main article. It appeared in Newsday on August 2 2008 under the title

Proud Old Houses Still standing, these homes help us imagine life as it was three centuries ago By George DeWan | Staff Writer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.126.81 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I created a new List of the oldest buildings in New York with references to your article. Swampyank (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Acoma Pueblo

Oldest House in the USA has a footnote mentioning "of course" Acoma Pueblo is older. It is extant and has been lived in continuously since long before Europeans arrived. Expand this page to mention it? --Una Smith (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The mention of pueblo ruins also fails to mention Taos Pueblo and Old Oraibi, all of which have been continuously occupied since around the year 1100. 76.113.115.59 (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC) David 6

Lack of Pueblos problematic

As the above editors noted, Acoma Pueblo, Taos Pueblo and Old Oraibi are notable and problematic omissions. --Bobak (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Few Minor Concerns About this List

Note: I could be wrong about everything, just saying a few things I thought of.

What were the Spanish doing building a church in Florida over 350 years before they knew of the Americas existence? Shit, I completely missed the whole reconstructed part. Maybe also include reconstructed date in the dates, sorry about that.

There are probably dozens of standing home built by native tribes still around, seeing what the mayans did in Mexico and all (I could be wrong), and seeing the discussion above me kind of confirms this

"Built by Native Americans or Europeans" how is race relevant, if a black slave in 1702 built the first theatre in America (made this up, just an example lol), would that not count on this list? There have been blacks in the US for almost as long as there have been Europeans, so maybe should this be changed?

I think this list is a brillant idea though, but it needs some work/fixing up. ♦ Flffy'd ♦ 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. A building is a building, no matter who built it. The builders, where relevant, should probably be in the description. The Florida one is an odd exception, but felt it should be added. Maybe making the info about the reconstruction more prominent wouldn't be bad. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the race of the builder is not particularly relevant. I used the words "European" and "Native America" to clarify that that Native Americans should not be excluded because alot of the "oldest" claims seem to be Eurocentric. I guess this inadvertently backfired into being Eurocentric. Guess we should make it more inclusive.

The reconstructed Spanish church confused me at first because it wasn't built in America (at least originally), but it does seem to be noteworthy and quite interesting. Maybe we should limit this list to buildings constructed in America? Not sure how to frame its inclusion in the list or how to create a separate list that would include it. Thanks for pointing out some great issues. Swampyank (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with excellent point this poster made. There are other places which might be included, for instance Canyon de Chelly, or elsewhere. Certainly all the Spanish sites in the Southwest as well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sortable?

I'd like to make this a sortable list, see User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox1. If anyone would like changes, I have it in an Excel spreadsheet, so changes -- fewer or more columns, etc., are easy.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything to make the list more user friendly seems like a good idea to me. Swampyank (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly?

Although I know it's widely used, "allegedly" has a flavor that I don't much like. Can we agree on "said to be" for this list? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. Swampyank (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What is eligible for this list?

I note the recent addition of Skidmore House, the oldest house in Northport, New York. From the facts that

• it's red-linked
• it's not listed on NRHP
• the town's population is 7,600

I would be inclined to remove it from the article. While the first house or building in states or major cities is the point of the list, I think we need to draw the line. Perhaps this might be one of the top fifty on List of United States cities by population. I might also want anything on the list to be on the NRHP, as that adds a layer of credibility. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. That doesn't meet the critera and has been removed. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit difficult to come up with some objective criteria for buildings to include on the list. Without some limitations, the list could become unwieldy. Maybe a building should:

• 1) not be a redlink,
• 2) be the oldest building in a state (even those not part of the original 13 colonies), territory, large city (top 50), or oldest of its type (church, government building, etc.),
• 3) and be freestanding (not a cave, ruin, or mound...there are separate lists for those)

There are probably other criteria. I'm not sure about using NRHP listing as a requirement, but it may be good starting point. What do you think? Swampyank (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I tossed in the NRHP simply because any building that appeared to meet your criteria but wasn't on the NRHP would have to be suspect -- it's hard to imagine a case where that might happen. It might help to eliminate the many buildings that claim to be old -- if they haven't convinced the state body that controls the NRHP recommendations, then why should we be convinced?

I'm not sure I would prohibit redlinks. A large fraction of the New Hampshire NRHP lists are red and I wouldn't be surprised if a building that would otherwise qualify here was one of them. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pix?

How about a column for illustrations? We'd have to remove the existing illustrations, but most of them would move to individual lines... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Having added the two illustrations of Old Ship Church, I'd like to see one of them remain. These illustrations don't appear on the page of the church itself, as I made an effort to get new illustrations for this page. I certainly think we could use some more illustrations on the page, though, of the other buildings cited. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree illustrations add a lot to articles. I wouldn't be opposed to more illustrations. Swampyank (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This was an excellent idea to change the format and include more photos. The piece looks great now. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mission San Antonio de Valero

I have a site to add, but I am not sure how to do it. The following is the information:

The Alamo, officially known as Mission San Antonio de Valero File:Alamo.jpg on San Antonio River in what is now San Antonio TX built in 1724 Religious Oldest Spanish Mission in San Antonio.

The picture is from Wikimedia and I am not sure about citing it.

If someone who knows what they are doing please add this. Susanlinnbowen (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Susanlinnbowen

Done. See below. It occurs to me that it might support a stronger claim -- at the moment it's the only building on the list in Texas. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sparrow House

I just added the eligibility criteria from the discussion above to the article page to alert editors that not every old building belongs there. The impetus for this was the subject's addition to the list.

Although it does not meet the criteria, I'm reluctant to remove Sparrow House from the list. Although not the oldest house in Massachusetts (by three years), it is the third oldest house in the East on the list. Should we, perhaps, add an exemption for buildings built before 1650? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Listing the criteria in the article is a good idea to prevent the list from becoming unwieldy. The Sparrow House is somewhat significant as the oldest house in what was Plymouth Colony. 1650 might be a good exemption date because so few buildings survive from before that date (I don't have any exact data on the numbers though). It is sometimes hard to draw the line as to inclusion in this list, and there's a few buildings on the list that maybe shouldn't be... Swampyank (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Greeting, folks. First, allow me to apologize for throwing the Sparrow House in there. I should have read the talk page more closely...if I had, I would have seen that back in October there was discussion about limiting this list to the oldest buildings in each state or major city. I agree that, seeing as the Sparrow House is the oldest building in Plymouth Colony (which was once independent from Massachusetts) it has a place on this list. On a broader note, it seems to me that the criteria set forth doesn't quite fit with the page's title. Personally, I think a list of the very oldest structures in the U.S. (regardless of how many happen to be clustered in each state) would be very interesting. As it now stands, what you have is a list of "Oldest structures in each state" which is really very different. The "one per state" criteria would eliminate many, many 17th century (and older) buildings, while including some 18th and maybe even 19th century buildings that don't seem to fit. So, I guess I'm suggesting that the page be opened up. And, if it becomes unwieldy, perhaps capped at a certain number? Historical Perspective (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)