Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
City Wide Open Space, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Palmerston-Little Italy (80)confidence moderate

City Wide Open Space

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 47, rank ~90th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 47.1 / 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 · 0.43 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports fieldRunning track
Vitality Score
47/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
47.1 / 100
Citywide
90th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
83rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=115)
Performance gap
+6
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 47 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 Activation25 · p85
-6.2
Amenity Diversity21 · p72
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park81 · p85
+3.1
Connectivity61 · p78
+2.2
Natural Comfort50 · p57
+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

City Wide Open Space works because its enclosure score (81) is in the top tier and its edge activation (25) is also top quartile (6 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space 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 enclosure (81, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+6 vs the median in small Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 4336 m², paved (0% canopy), 27.6 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
25.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop, retail, school) and 1 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%
61.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 11 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~276 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)11
Sidewalk segments (50 m)9
Transit stops (400 m)9
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.17
Park perimeter276 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 (sports_field, track). 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 used30

Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
80.6 / 100

76 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 70 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.5 m (~3 floors); 27.6 buildings per 100 m of 276 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 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m76
Buildings within 50 m76
Avg edge height7.5 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building10.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)70
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density27.55 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge8%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter276 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)

  • sports field
  • track

Nearby active-edge features (14)

  • parking lot35 m
  • school: Delta Senior Alternative School43 m
  • transit stop: Grace Street92 m
  • retail: Rebecca Gallery100 m
  • transit stop: Grace Street114 m
  • retail: Glassbox Barbershop116 m
  • retail121 m
  • retail: Extraordinary Things133 m
  • retail: The Laundry Room138 m
  • retail: V.I.P Tailor & Dry Cleaner147 m
  • transit stop: Crawford Street177 m
  • cafe: Olivia's Garden Cafe181 m
  • transit stop: Crawford Street188 m
  • retail: The Bike Clinic193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space
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
    90th
  • Edge activation
    85th
  • Connectivity
    78th
  • Amenity diversity
    72th
  • Natural comfort
    57th
  • Enclosure
    85th

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 City Wide Open Spacematters. 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.