Ancona Park
Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 39, rank ~70th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Ancona Park scores 39.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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.
Area · 1.67 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 39 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
Ancona Park works because its natural comfort score (57) is above average and its connectivity (58) is also above-average.
What limits this park
Ancona Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (57, above-average).
Jacobs reading
Ancona Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Tradeoffs
- The park is enclosed by buildings (63) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
Performance in context
- Citywide rank is high (70th) but typology rank is more modest (50th): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.7 ha, framed by 1 mid-rise vs 0 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) and 3 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~769 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: 18.3% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~791 m; 31 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (18.5/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
82 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 81 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.6 m (~2 floors); 10.7 buildings per 100 m of 769 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum 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
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 (2 types · 3 records)
- playground
- sports field
Nearby active-edge features (13)
- parking lot49 m
- parking lot70 m
- parking lot86 m
- transit stop: Finch Ave W at Endell St94 m
- transit stop: Ancona Street100 m
- parking lot109 m
- parking lot113 m
- transit stop: Ancona Street127 m
- parking lot178 m
- parking lot193 m
- parking lot194 m
- transit stop195 m
- restaurant: Domino's195 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality70th
- Edge activation33th
- Connectivity73th
- Amenity diversity72th
- Natural comfort74th
- Enclosure52th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Ron Watson ParkWaterfront Park37
- Lynngate ParkNeighbourhood Park41
- Duncan Creek ParkRavine / Naturalized Park38
- West Hill ParkNeighbourhood Park39
- Delma ParkParkette37
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park75
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 Ancona Parkmatters. 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.
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.
- Diversify what people can do in the park (playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden): even small additions raise this score.
Data sources
- City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)Polygon boundaries, official names, types. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.