Talk:Sam Kee Building

Dubious

This is a great and worthy article and the pics are fantastic. The declaration that this is "the narrowest commercial building in the world" is simply false. It may be "the narrowest commercial building built to code in a Western city" or "an unusually narrow commercial building" or "the narrowest commercial building to take up an entire city block" but the world is littered with "commercial buildings" by any reasonable definition that are narrower. --AStanhope 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone clarify which part of this building is "only 4'11" at its ground floor base"? To me, it seems to be at least 20 feet wide. --Keeves 03:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the picture, either. Adding some simple graphics and/or a detailed caption to the picture might help. --User101010 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the photos are misleading. In addition, I suggest editing the article: change "...building that is only 4'11" at its ground floor base, and 6 feet at the second story..." to "...building that is only 4'11" wide at its ground floor base, and 6 feet wide at the second story..."

Also agreeing that the photos are all messed up, anyone in the area able to take new ones that actually show the width as it is stated? 198.6.46.11 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Let me see if I can figure out how to get an editor working on the "Vancouver project" or whatever it is called to get some new pics. Thanks. --AStanhope 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a request here:[1] - hopefully someone will lend us a hand. Thanks, all! --AStanhope 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in Vancouver - I believe the story is true, but the pictures don't really highlight the width do they. I'll see if I can drop by tomorrow and get an alternate picture. I think there is a plaque to some effect on the building as well, so maybe a picture of that too.--Bookandcoffee 08:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Groovy. Thanks! --AStanhope 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it took me a couple days, but I hope the new pic shows the width a little more clearly. The yellow plaque you can see in the photo reads:

    "Ripley recognized this building constructed in 1913 as the narrowest in the world. Responding to a wager Chang Toy, owner of the Sam Kee Company, used bay windows and public baths under the sidewalk to maximize development on a site dramatically diminished by city road expropriation."

    --Bookandcoffee 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This page talks a little about the building, and the comments (while perhaps not meeting Wikipedia's standards as a reference) capture some personal anecdotes. I walked by this building many many times in the 1970s, during which it housed a fabric store. Bolts of fabric don't require a lot of building width.

The main floor on ground level is only 4’11” (1.5 m) wide, making a photo of outstretched arms touching the walls a popular shot. The top floor is 6’ wide (1.83 m) because of the overhanging windows; the basement is 6’ wide because it extends underneath the sidewalk. Thick blocks of glass embedded in the sidewalk allow light to shine down into the basement.

Customers at [Kee's] general store had to be served through the windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenm125 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Side view of the Sam Kee Building

• ... that the Sam Kee Building (pictured), recognized by Guinness World Records as the "narrowest commercial building in the world", was built on a bet between two businessmen?

• Source: Moliere, Ashley (May 25, 2021). "Built on a Bet: An inside Look at the World's Narrowest Building". CBC News.

• ALT1: ... that the title of "narrowest commercial building in the world" is contested between the Sam Kee Building (pictured) in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the Hendel Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? Source: Mellon, Steve (May 30, 2004). "Here: In Downtown". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. p. F9. Archived from the original on February 5, 2010.
• ALT2: ... that Chinese-Canadian businessman Sam Kee built the Sam Kee Building (pictured), a narrow spite house, after the city took his land without compensating him? Source: "Sam Kee Building". Canadian Register of Historic Places. Parks Canada.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ryu Sung-hyun
• Comment: A very curious building in my hometown with many interesting details, too many to fit in one DYK nomination. The hooks offered here are ordered by my personal preference.

5x expanded by Yue (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Yue🌙 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC).

• I'm reviewing this. X (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The fivefold is borderline met here as per my calculation. All other criteria are fulfilled. I've done some minor copy-editing. ALT0 is the most intriguing of the 3. X (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Xoak and Yue: It is short of the 5x expansion by my computation. Expansion start:2190 finish:9508. For a 5x expansion it should be 10950 characters. So 10950-9508=1442 characters short. I will see if editors are ok with an IAR exemption. Bruxton (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: I calculated based on prose size, per WP:DYK5X. I used the prose's word count, which was 296 words before my edits and 1501 words after my initial expansion. I now see that the criteria is characters and not words, which I would be short by 73 (1905 × 5 = 9525; 9525 − 9452 = 73). However, I would argue that, whether it be 73 by my calculation or 1442 by yours, the article has been significantly expanded in the spirit of the guideline. Yue🌙 20:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Xoak and Yue: You can get this tool so you see how I worked out the math. User:Shubinator/DYKcheck. It is short 1442 characters not 73. Discussion at WT:DYK seems to be for running your article even though it is short. So I will continue my checks. Bruxton (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I have ever seen a sentence cited to a map in this way, source for "In 1912, Vancouver City Council expropriated without compensation 2,199.24 square feet (204.316 m2), or about 79 per cent, of the above-ground portion of the lot." I do not have time to stick with this so will allow another promotor to check this out before promotion. Bruxton (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yue, do you intend to return to this? If not, per your comment at WT:DYK], this nom will be rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: As in, do I intend to make up the remaining characters? I tried adding a bit, but I do not think there is enough verifiable content out there to reach that threshold. If the promoters do not agree on an exception for this nomination, then I am fine with it being rejected at this time. Yue🌙 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)