Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Briar Hill-Belgravia (108)confidence moderate

City Wide Open Space

Parkette, one of the city's strongest overall (score 52, rank ~96th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 52.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.19 ha

What's here

Facilities

Benches

Vitality Score

52/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence

52.3 / 100

Citywide

96th

of all 3,788 parks

Among Parkette

97th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Parkette (n=296)

Performance gap

+21

raw − expected · context confidence high

strong overperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Loading map…

Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 52 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 Diversity12 · p53

-7.6

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park84 · p90

+3.4

Natural Comfort70 · p85

+3.0

Edge Activation39 · p91

-2.9

Connectivity57 · p72

+1.5

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 edge activation score (39) is in the top tier and its enclosure (84) is also top quartile.

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 edge activation (39, top decile).

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

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 52 versus an expected 31 for similar parks (pocket Parkette) (gap +21).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (1910 m²) with strong building frontage (32.8 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

38.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 3 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%

57.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 6 mapped paths/walkways and 7 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 7 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~177 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m4

Paths/walkways (50 m)6

Sidewalk segments (50 m)7

Transit stops (400 m)7

Estimated entrances3

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.83

Park perimeter177 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (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% weightpartial 48%

69.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 41.2% estimated tree canopy; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.0/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage41.2%

Canopy area0.08 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 polygon8

Tree density8.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)97.7

Sample points used17

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

83.7 / 100

58 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (14 mid-rise, 44 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.6 m (~2 floors); 32.8 buildings per 100 m of 177 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 14 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m58

Buildings within 50 m58

Avg edge height6.6 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building13.3 m

Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)14

Low-rise (< 3 floors)44

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density32.83 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge24%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter177 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 (1 types · 7 records)

bench

Nearby active-edge features (37)

transit stop: Dufferin St at Briar Hill Ave22 m
transit stop: Dufferin St at Briar Hill Ave23 m
parking lot51 m
retail: Goodyear56 m
transit stop: Stayner Avenue65 m
parking lot65 m
retail: Unique Cleaners71 m
retail: Avenue 22 Bridal75 m
parking lot88 m
retail: IGO Optical89 m
retail: Rhonrose Printing and Copy89 m
retail: Vibagio Hair Studio95 m
retail: HearingLife95 m
parking lot103 m
transit stop: Wingold Avenue121 m
retail: Century Builders Hardware Ltd.124 m
parking lot128 m
parking lot130 m
cafe: Tim Hortons134 m
retail: Solo Vape144 m
retail: Girls Beauty Clinic152 m
parking lot152 m
parking lot153 m
restaurant: Taste of Shawarma154 m
retail: Star Binz Liquidation154 m
transit stop: Castlefield Avenue159 m
parking lot162 m
restaurant: Toronto Pho167 m
parking lot168 m
parking lot168 m
parking lot172 m
retail: LF Optical174 m
retail: Consumers Lighting & Lamps175 m
parking lot176 m
parking lot178 m
parking lot181 m
parking lot199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

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
96th
Edge activation
91th
Connectivity
72th
Amenity diversity
53th
Natural comfort
85th
Enclosure
90th

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.

Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
Trca Lands ( 58)Waterfront Park18
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
Paul Coffey ParkOther29
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25

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.

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.