Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Chandos Park North, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Dovercourt-Wallace Emerson-Junction (93)confidence moderate

Chandos Park North

Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 44, rank ~84th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Chandos Park North scores 43.9 / 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.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.44 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports field
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
43.9 / 100
Citywide
84th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
72nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=115)
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 44 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
Edge Activation0 · p35
-12.5
Amenity Diversity21 · p72
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity72 · p94
+4.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park76 · p80
+2.6
Natural Comfort51 · p65
+0.1

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

Chandos Park North works because its connectivity score (72) is in the top tier and its enclosure (76) is also top quartile (21 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 10 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Chandos Park North doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (72, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Chandos Park North 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 (76) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 4382 m², paved (0% canopy), 36.6 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

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

20% weightmeasured 85%
72.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 8 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~284 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)8
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)21
Estimated entrances6
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.81
Park perimeter284 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 (bench, 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

15% weightinferred 30%
50.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~21.7% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 31 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (31.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: street_trees. 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)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon31
Tree density31.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used31

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
76.2 / 100

104 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 99 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.9 m (~2 floors); 36.6 buildings per 100 m of 284 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m104
Buildings within 50 m104
Avg edge height5.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building9.3 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)5
Low-rise (< 3 floors)99
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density36.58 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge5%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter284 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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)

  • bench
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (16)

  • parking lot124 m
  • transit stop: Dufferin St at Chandos Ave127 m
  • parking lot133 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Rd at Lightbourn Ave138 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Rd at Lightbourn Ave150 m
  • transit stop: Brandon Avenue159 m
  • retail162 m
  • restaurant: 241 Pizza167 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • retail: Caversham Booksellers182 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • retail184 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Rd at Dufferin St186 m
  • transit stop: Dufferin St at Brandon Ave189 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Rd at Greenlaw Ave190 m
  • retail: King Kobra Vintage Canada195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureChandos Park North
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
    84th
  • Edge activation
    35th
  • Connectivity
    94th
  • Amenity diversity
    72th
  • Natural comfort
    65th
  • Enclosure
    80th

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 Chandos Park Northmatters. 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.

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.