Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)South Riverdale

Carlaw-Dundas Triangle Park

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 48, rank ~91th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Carlaw-Dundas Triangle Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

Carlaw-Dundas Triangle Park scores 48.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (21). 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 · 0.02 ha

What's here

Facilities
BenchesPublic art

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (2 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 33 m away. None of the 7 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
48/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
48.2 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
91st
of all 3,752 parks
Among Urban Plaza
84th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
Performance gap
+10
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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 48 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 Diversity21 · p73
-5.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park92 · p97
+4.2
Natural Comfort23 · p3
-4.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity52 · p62
+0.3
Edge Activation49 · p95
-0.3

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

Carlaw-Dundas Triangle Park works because its enclosure score (92) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (49) is also top decile (9 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Carlaw-Dundas Triangle 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

Carlaw-Dundas Triangle Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (52) significantly outpaces natural comfort (23): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+10 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 152 m², paved (0% canopy), 11.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
48.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 active uses (transit_stop, cafe, retail, restaurant) 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% weightmeasured 85%
51.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 15 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~64 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)15
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter6.00
Park perimeter64 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (art, bench). 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%
23.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1116 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)1,116 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used4

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
91.6 / 100

11 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 14.4 m (~5 floors); 11.0 buildings per 100 m of 64 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m11
Buildings within 50 m11
Avg edge height14.4 m (~5 floors)
Tallest edge building27.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)9
Low-rise (< 3 floors)2
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density11.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge82%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter64 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 (2 types · 3 records)

  • art
  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (28)

  • transit stop: Dundas Street East23 m
  • restaurant: Garden Bar & Bodega31 m
  • parking lot33 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street East34 m
  • retail: Anatomy of Ink35 m
  • cafe: The Raspberry Cafe46 m
  • retail: Textür52 m
  • retail: Golf Away Tours54 m
  • restaurant: Subway56 m
  • cafe: Fruitful Market66 m
  • transit stop90 m
  • retail: Paper & Poste94 m
  • parking lot94 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot119 m
  • parking lot124 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • retail: Leslieville Massage Therapy138 m
  • cafe: Shirley's First Break155 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision163 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision167 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision171 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision176 m
  • restaurant: Maker Pizza183 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision194 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision198 m
  • transit stop200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCarlaw-Dundas Triangle 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
    91th
  • Edge activation
    95th
  • Connectivity
    62th
  • Amenity diversity
    73th
  • Natural comfort
    3th
  • Enclosure
    97th

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 Carlaw-Dundas Triangle 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.
  • 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.