Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)South Riverdale

58 Curzon Street Park

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 33, rank ~41th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of 58 Curzon Street Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

58 Curzon Street Park scores 32.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and amenity diversity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.07 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundGarden
Facilities
Picnic areaBenches

Getting around

Paths

39 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (3 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 28 m away. None of the 4 nearby lots records whether it has accessible spaces.

Path, seating and parking data comes from OpenStreetMap and reflects what volunteers have mapped, not a survey. Absence here means nobody has recorded it. This section does not assess wheelchair access: the relevant OpenStreetMap tag is present on well under 1% of Toronto paths.

Vitality Score
33/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence
32.6 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
42nd
of all 3,752 parks
Among Urban Plaza
20th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
Performance gap
-5
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Explain this score

Where did the 33 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.

Download JSON
What pushed this score up or down vs a neutral 50weight × score
Edge Activation0 · p28
-12.5
Connectivity23 · p19
-5.4
Natural Comfort23 · p2
-4.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park90 · p96
+4.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Amenity Diversity35 · p88
-3.1

Sum of contributions = the headline score. A negative bar means that dimension dragged the park below the city-wide neutral baseline.

Why this park works

58 Curzon Street Park works because its enclosure score (90) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (35) is also top quartile (23 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

58 Curzon Street Park is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (23, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

58 Curzon Street Park is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (90) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -5; cohort: pocket Urban Plaza).
  • Citywide rank is high (42nd) but typology rank is more modest (20th): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 697 m², paved (0% canopy), 56.2 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 2 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot). Active edges keep "eyes on the park" through the day; parking lots, blank institutional walls, rail and highway frontages drain street life.

Source: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightpartial 65%
22.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~114 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)21
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter114 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
34.5 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, garden, picnic). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
22.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1226 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,226 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used14

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
89.6 / 100

64 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (23 mid-rise, 41 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.9 m (~3 floors); 56.2 buildings per 100 m of 114 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 23 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m64
Buildings within 50 m64
Avg edge height7.9 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building13.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)23
Low-rise (< 3 floors)41
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density56.23 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge36%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter114 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.

Source: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints

Equity Context

contextinferred 15%
50.0 / 100

Equity Context requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.

Source: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles

Amenities (4 types · 12 records)

  • playground
  • bench
  • garden
  • picnic

Nearby active-edge features (17)

  • parking lot28 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • parking lot121 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street East172 m
  • retail: T & F Auto Repair177 m
  • transit stop: Jones Ave at Queen St E180 m
  • restaurant: Nodo186 m
  • retail190 m
  • restaurant: YAYA Greek Bistro190 m
  • restaurant: Tinga Kim Taqueria190 m
  • retail: Himalayan Collections191 m
  • retail: Timmie's191 m
  • retail: 6ix Side Vapes194 m
  • transit stop: Jones Ave at Queen St E196 m
  • retail: The Cookery197 m
  • restaurant: Descendant199 m
  • parking lot199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosure58 Curzon Street Park
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    41th
  • Edge activation
    28th
  • Connectivity
    19th
  • Amenity diversity
    88th
  • Natural comfort
    2th
  • Enclosure
    96th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Human activity signals: not available

No activity signals have landed for this park yet. The model has scored its physical form but it can’t yet say how often it’s programmed, photographed, or walked through. See /data-ethics for what we will and will not collect.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of 58 Curzon Street Park matters. We’re testing whether the model lines up with how people actually use the park. Submissions are stored locally; no account needed.

Tell us how this park feels

We measure structure (canopy, edges, connectivity). You measure feeling. Both matter, and disagreement is itself useful civic data.

Rate this park on as many dimensions as you have an opinion about. 1 = not at all, 5 = strongly. Skip the ones you don't feel sure about. Aggregated only, no comments stored at the row level.

feels socially active
feels comfortable
feels safe
feels connected
feels welcoming
feels ecological / natural
feels good for lingering
feels family-friendly
feels culturally important
70%

What would improve this park?

Generated from the weakest measured dimensions: a starting point, not a prescription.

  • Activate the edges: encourage cafés, retail or community uses on the streets that face the park; replace blank or parking-lot edges where possible.
  • Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
  • Diversify what people can do in the park (playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden): even small additions raise this score.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • Parks & Recreation Facilities
    Inventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
  • Toronto Pedestrian Network
    Sidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
  • Toronto Centreline V2
    Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
  • Toronto 3D Massing
    Building footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
  • Toronto Treed Area
    Tree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
  • Toronto Waterbodies & Rivers
    Water surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
  • Ravine & Natural Feature Protection
    Ravine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
  • Toronto Street Tree Inventory
    Tree count + density inside park polygons.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.