Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Bay Street Corridor (76)confidence moderate

Children's Healing Garden

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~64th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: connectivity.

Children's Healing Garden scores 37.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (21). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (90). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.12 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundGarden
Vitality Score
38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
37.8 / 100
Citywide
64th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
46th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=360)
Performance gap
+0
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 38 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 · p77
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk90 (risk)
-4.0
Edge Activation35 · p90
-3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p95
+3.8
Connectivity38 · p37
-2.4
Natural Comfort50 · p64
+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

Children's Healing Garden works because its enclosure score (88) is in the top tier and its edge activation (35) is also top decile (45 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Children's Healing Garden's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 90.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (88, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Children's Healing Garden sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1221 m², paved (0% canopy), 46.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
34.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 12 active uses (retail, cafe, transit_stop, restaurant) and 4 dead/hostile uses (highway). 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%
37.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 43 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~176 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)9
Transit stops (400 m)43
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter176 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 (garden, playground). 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 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 used12

Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.2 / 100

81 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (45 mid-rise, 20 low-rise, 16 tower); avg edge height 23.9 m (~8 floors); 46.0 buildings per 100 m of 176 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 16 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 45 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m81
Buildings within 50 m81
Avg edge height23.9 m (~8 floors)
Tallest edge building67.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)45
Low-rise (< 3 floors)20
Towers (≥ 13 floors)16
Frontage density45.95 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge56%
Tower share of edge20%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter176 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
90.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: University Avenue, University Avenue, University Avenue. 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 · 2 records)

  • garden
  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (45)

  • transit stop: Gerrard Street West0 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard St West at University Ave18 m
  • highway: University Avenue37 m
  • highway: University Avenue38 m
  • restaurant: Soup it Up41 m
  • restaurant: Blue Fig Middleterranean Restaurant42 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons44 m
  • highway: University Avenue48 m
  • cafe: Second Cup67 m
  • highway: University Avenue69 m
  • cafe: Timothy's80 m
  • retail: Indigo92 m
  • cafe: Starbucks93 m
  • restaurant: Firehouse Subs97 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons98 m
  • restaurant: Freshslice Pizza100 m
  • transit stop: Elm St at University Ave East Side101 m
  • cafe: On the Way Café104 m
  • retail: Istilo Salon106 m
  • transit stop: University Ave at Gerrard St West106 m
  • highway: University Avenue110 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons116 m
  • restaurant: Chipotle118 m
  • restaurant: Teriyaki Experience126 m
  • cafe: Starbucks128 m
  • restaurant: Sushi Man136 m
  • highway: University Avenue136 m
  • restaurant: Thaï Express143 m
  • highway: University Avenue144 m
  • restaurant: Subway146 m
  • retail: Hasty Market149 m
  • rail: Line 1 Yonge-University153 m
  • rail: Line 1 Yonge-University155 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard St at Elizabeth St West Side159 m
  • retail: The Printing House167 m
  • restaurant: Druxy's Famous Deli170 m
  • community: University of Toronto Dentistry Library172 m
  • restaurant: Bread & Bowl177 m
  • cafe: Aroma Espresso Bar184 m
  • highway: University Avenue185 m
  • restaurant: The Host190 m
  • community: University of Toronto Department of Family and Community Medicine191 m
  • restaurant: FLOCK rotisserie + greens191 m
  • parking lot193 m
  • parking lot199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureChildren's Healing Garden
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
    64th
  • Edge activation
    90th
  • Connectivity
    37th
  • Amenity diversity
    77th
  • Natural comfort
    64th
  • 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 Children's Healing Gardenmatters. 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.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

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.