Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
City Wide Open Space, site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview (7)confidence moderate

City Wide Open Space

Other, near the bottom of the city overall (score 24, rank ~10th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 24.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (66). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 1.39 ha

Vitality Score
24/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
24.2 / 100
Citywide
10th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Other
27th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Other (n=181)
Performance gap
-6
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

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 24 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 · p11
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p16
-10.0
Natural Comfort32 · p16
-2.7
Border Vacuum Risk66 (risk)
-1.6
Connectivity53 · p64
+0.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park54 · p25
+0.4

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 connectivity score (53) is middle of the pack (16 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (66).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (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

  • 10 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -6; cohort: medium Other).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (1.4 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 2.9/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop) and 7 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, 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%
53.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 24 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~725 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)2
Sidewalk segments (50 m)24
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.41
Park perimeter725 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
31.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1453 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.4/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, 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)1,453 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density1.4 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used97

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
54.0 / 100

21 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 4 low-rise, 10 tower); avg edge height 31.7 m (~11 floors); 2.9 buildings per 100 m of 725 m perimeter (moderate frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 10 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m21
Buildings within 50 m21
Avg edge height31.7 m (~11 floors)
Tallest edge building53.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)4
Towers (≥ 13 floors)10
Frontage density2.90 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge33%
Tower share of edge48%
Blank-edge share (proxy)4%
Park perimeter725 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
66.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Eglinton Avenue West, parking_lot, 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (29)

  • transit stop: Eglinton Avenue West4 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West22 m
  • parking lot29 m
  • transit stop: Kipling Ave at Widdicombe Hill Blvd33 m
  • transit stop: Kipling Avenue34 m
  • parking lot37 m
  • transit stop: Widdicombe Hill Boulevard39 m
  • parking lot41 m
  • transit stop: Kipling Avenue48 m
  • transit stop: Kipling Avenue at Eglinton Avenue West58 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West77 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West86 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • parking lot120 m
  • parking lot136 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • transit stop: 63 Widdicombe Hill Blvd (Huntingwood Place)143 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West152 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • parking lot162 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West192 m
  • parking lot199 m
  • parking lot199 m
  • retail: Hunny Pot Cannabis200 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
    10th
  • Edge activation
    11th
  • Connectivity
    64th
  • Amenity diversity
    16th
  • Natural comfort
    16th
  • Enclosure
    25th

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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
  • 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.