City Wide Open Space
Tower-Community Green Space, near the bottom of the city overall (score 24, rank ~10th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: amenity diversity.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
City Wide Open Space scores 24.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.07 ha
Getting around
No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.
No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.
Nearest parking 166 m away. None of the 1 nearby lot 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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 52%
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 24 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
City Wide Open Space works because its enclosure score (70) is middle of the pack and its edge activation (9) is also above-average.
What limits this park
City Wide Open Space is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).
Jacobs reading
City Wide Open Space is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.
Tradeoffs
- The park is enclosed by buildings (70) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 9): frame without animation.
Performance in context
- Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -8; cohort: pocket Tower-Community Green Space).
Typology classification
Classified as Tower-Community Green Space: 3 towers vs 0 mid-rise within 25 m on a 0.1 ha park
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 2 dead/hostile uses (rail). 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 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 6 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~139 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
No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~531 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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
12 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 9 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 14.3 m (~5 floors); 8.7 buildings per 100 m of 139 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Belleville Subdivision. 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 (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (7)
- rail: Belleville Subdivision48 m
- rail: Belleville Subdivision50 m
- transit stop: Kennedy Rd at Village Green Square64 m
- transit stop: Kennedy Rd at Village Green Square67 m
- transit stop115 m
- transit stop: Kennedy Rd at Pently Cres165 m
- parking lot166 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality10th
- Edge activation68th
- Connectivity13th
- Amenity diversity1th
- Natural comfort8th
- Enclosure70th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- City Wide Open SpaceParkette23
- Moccasin Trail ParkParkette24
- Upper Rouge Trail ParkCorridor / Linear Park25
- North York Hydro Green SpaceParkette24
- Dean ParkCorridor / Linear Park24
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park75
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- High ParkWaterfront Park51
- Trinity Bellwoods ParkNeighbourhood Park66
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 City Wide Open Space 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: 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.