Boulton Drive Parkette
Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~66th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Boulton Drive Parkette scores 38.2 / 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 · 0.15 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%
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 38 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
Boulton Drive Parkette works because its enclosure score (87) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (21) is also above-average (12 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).
What limits this park
Boulton Drive Parkette is held back by natural comfort (38, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (87, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Boulton Drive Parkette 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 (87) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 1498 m², paved (0% canopy), 28.1 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 15 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 8 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~181 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 (bench, garden). 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: ~5.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1273 m; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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
51 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (12 mid-rise, 39 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.1 m (~3 floors); 28.1 buildings per 100 m of 181 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 12 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)
- bench
- garden
Nearby active-edge features (18)
- parking lot10 m
- parking lot78 m
- rail: North Toronto Subdivision115 m
- rail: North Toronto Subdivision119 m
- parking lot151 m
- parking lot151 m
- retail: South Hill Home155 m
- transit stop: Dupont St at Davenport Road176 m
- parking lot176 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons187 m
- retail: Circle K189 m
- retail: Davenport Garden Center194 m
- transit stop: Dupont St at Davenport Road196 m
- retail: Davenport Leaf197 m
- retail198 m
- restaurant: Chilliy Pepper Tacos198 m
- cafe: Haute Coffee199 m
- retail: Mirror by La Vita200 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality66th
- Edge activation34th
- Connectivity66th
- Amenity diversity72th
- Natural comfort32th
- Enclosure93th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Ranleigh ParkUrban Plaza40
- Alan - Oxford ParketteUrban Plaza40
- BOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building GroundsUrban Plaza38
- Pessoa ParkUrban Plaza32
- Glen Ravine ParkRavine / Naturalized Park38
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49
- Toronto ZooWaterfront Park67
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park75
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
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 Boulton Drive Parkettematters. 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.
- Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
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.