Canon Jackson Park
Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.
No photograph yet. If you have one of Canon Jackson Park, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoData updated
Canon Jackson Park scores 36.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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 · 0.38 ha
What's here
Getting around
208 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.
No steps mapped on the path network.
Typically 8 m to the nearest bench, and 14 m at the far end.
Nearest parking 156 m away. 1 of 3 nearby lots reporting 2 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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 64%
Data confidence: moderate
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Explain this score
Where did the 36 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
Canon Jackson Park works because its amenity diversity score (32) is above average.
What limits this park
Canon Jackson 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 amenity diversity (32, top quartile).
Jacobs reading
Canon Jackson 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 (61) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
Typology classification
Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 52% ravine overlap, 0% canopy
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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 11 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~250 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, drinking_water, shelter). 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: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 51.9% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~972 m. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies. 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
8 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 7 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.8 m (~2 floors); 3.2 buildings per 100 m of 250 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 1 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.
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 (4 types · 11 records)
- playground
- bench
- drinking water
- shelter
Nearby active-edge features (4)
- parking lot156 m
- parking lot158 m
- transit stop: 28 Ingram Drive187 m
- parking lot195 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality56th
- Edge activation30th
- Connectivity36th
- Amenity diversity84th
- Natural comfort40th
- Enclosure43th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Senator Marian Maloney ParkCivic Square34
- Byng ParkAthletic / Recreation Park33
- Pinto ParkNeighbourhood Park37
- Princess Anne ParkAthletic / Recreation Park34
- Major Abbas Ali ParkAthletic / Recreation Park31
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza67
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park75
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
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 Canon Jackson 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.
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
- City of Toronto Open Data: Green SpacesPolygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.