Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
City Wide Open Space, site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear ParkType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Princess-Rosethorn

City Wide Open Space

Corridor / Linear Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 18, rank ~2th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of City Wide Open Space, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

City Wide Open Space scores 18.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwalking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 0.02 ha

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 31 m away. None of the 7 nearby lots 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.

Vitality Score
18/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence
18.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
2nd
of all 3,753 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
3rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in pocket Corridor / Linear Park (n=123)
Performance gap
-13
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong 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 18 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 · p45
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p36
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Natural Comfort24 · p6
-3.9
Connectivity48 · p56
-0.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park51 · p24
+0.1

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 doesn't have a clear standout dimension. The strongest measured signal is connectivity, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by natural comfort (24, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (24, 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.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort: raw 18 vs an expected 31 (gap -13).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 23.9× a circle of equal area

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop, cafe) and 10 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
48.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 6 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,084 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)6 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 6 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.18
Park perimeter1,084 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
24.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~754 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)754 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used0

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
50.9 / 100

14 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 7 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.3 m (~3 floors); 1.3 buildings per 100 m of 1,084 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m14
Buildings within 50 m14
Avg edge height8.3 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building12.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)7
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.29 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge50%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)57%
Park perimeter1,084 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, 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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (33)

  • transit stop: Lloyd Manor Road14 m
  • transit stop: South side stop - Eglinton Avenue West22 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West26 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West30 m
  • parking lot31 m
  • transit stop: Martin Grove Road34 m
  • transit stop: Widdicombe Hill Boulevard43 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons43 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West46 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West52 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West53 m
  • parking lot58 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West59 m
  • parking lot59 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West72 m
  • transit stop: Martin Grove Road73 m
  • transit stop: Winterton Drive84 m
  • parking lot101 m
  • transit stop: Martin Grove Rd at Eglinton Avenue West102 m
  • transit stop: Nottinghill Gate104 m
  • transit stop: North side stop - Eglinton Avenue West114 m
  • parking lot129 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West133 m
  • transit stop: 201 Lloyd Manor Rd - Lloyd Manor Place (Metro)143 m
  • retail: Q-Market155 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue West157 m
  • cafe: Starbucks158 m
  • retail: Perfect 10 Nails & Spa160 m
  • retail: Cadet Cleaners168 m
  • retail: Classic Tan170 m
  • retail: Hunny Pot Cannabis172 m
  • parking lot183 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
    2th
  • Edge activation
    45th
  • Connectivity
    56th
  • Amenity diversity
    36th
  • Natural comfort
    6th
  • Enclosure
    24th

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 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.

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.
  • 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: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.