Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)University (79)confidence moderate

Back Campus Fields

Neighbourhood Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~77th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: connectivity.

Back Campus Fields scores 41.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 1.28 ha

Vitality Score
42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 54%

Data Confidence
41.5 / 100
Citywide
77th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
63rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=393)
Performance gap
+2
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 42 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
Amenity Diversity0 · p52
-10.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park89 · p95
+3.8
Edge Activation35 · p90
-3.8
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Connectivity44 · p48
-1.2
Natural Comfort50 · p63
+0.0

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

Back Campus Fields works because its enclosure score (89) is in the top tier and its edge activation (35) is also top decile (31 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (89, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Back Campus Fields sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.3 ha, framed by 31 mid-rise vs 6 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
34.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 12 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, community, cafe) and 4 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% weightmeasured 85%
44.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~455 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)12
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.22
Park perimeter455 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 15%
50.0 / 100

Natural Comfort requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used90

Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.5 / 100

49 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (31 mid-rise, 12 low-rise, 6 tower); avg edge height 18.4 m (~6 floors); 10.8 buildings per 100 m of 455 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 6 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 31 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m49
Buildings within 50 m49
Avg edge height18.4 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building44.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)31
Low-rise (< 3 floors)12
Towers (≥ 13 floors)6
Frontage density10.77 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge63%
Tower share of edge12%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter455 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (39)

  • transit stop: Tower Road17 m
  • cafe: Diabolos Coffee Bar27 m
  • parking lot35 m
  • cafe: Acacia Cafe37 m
  • transit stop: Tower Road38 m
  • parking lot46 m
  • community: Hart House Library49 m
  • parking lot66 m
  • restaurant: The Arbor Room71 m
  • cafe: Café Reznikoff72 m
  • transit stop: St George Street78 m
  • parking lot83 m
  • cafe: The Owlery Café92 m
  • restaurant: Dining Car94 m
  • restaurant: Ideal Catering (Brown Food Truck)99 m
  • community: University College Library100 m
  • restaurant: Exchange Cafe104 m
  • transit stop: St George Street112 m
  • rail: Line 1 Yonge-University125 m
  • rail: Line 1 Yonge-University126 m
  • restaurant: Mama's Best128 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • cafe: Second Cup143 m
  • community: Milt Harris Library147 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • transit stop: Queen's Part Cres West at Hart House154 m
  • highway: Queen's Park Crescent West158 m
  • highway: Queen's Park Crescent West159 m
  • parking lot160 m
  • community: The Buttery160 m
  • community: Cheng Yu Tung East Asian Library161 m
  • highway: Queen's Park Crescent West167 m
  • cafe: Second Cup171 m
  • restaurant: Spring Rolls173 m
  • restaurant: Ramen Ya174 m
  • community: Caven Library175 m
  • community: Map & Data Library182 m
  • highway: Queen's Park Crescent West188 m
  • parking lot: Landmark Garage189 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureBack Campus Fields
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
    77th
  • Edge activation
    90th
  • Connectivity
    48th
  • Amenity diversity
    52th
  • Natural comfort
    63th
  • Enclosure
    95th

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 Back Campus Fieldsmatters. 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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • 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 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.