Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Neighbourhood ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Flemingdon Park

Flemingdon Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 54, rank ~97th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Flemingdon Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

Flemingdon Park scores 54.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (39.8). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban lifefamilies

Area · 2.38 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundBasketballGarden
Facilities
WashroomPicnic area

Getting around

Paths

261 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. 2 of 8 nearby lots reporting 5 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
54/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
54.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
97th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
94th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
40
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=357)
Performance gap
+14
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…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 54 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
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity63 · p81
+2.6
Amenity Diversity40 · p92
-2.0
Edge Activation49 · p96
-0.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park52 · p24
+0.2
Natural Comfort50 · p55
-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

Flemingdon Park works because its edge activation score (49) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (40) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Flemingdon Park is held back by enclosure (52, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (49, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Flemingdon Park 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 54 versus an expected 40 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +14).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.4 ha, framed by 2 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
49.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop, retail) 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
62.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 5 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 7 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~703 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)5
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)7 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 7 bus)
Estimated entrances3
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.14
Park perimeter703 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
39.8 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, garden, picnic, playground, washroom). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
49.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~14.7% effective canopy (0.6% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~377 m; 50 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (21.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.6%
Canopy area0.01 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)377 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon50
Tree density21.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)5.3
Sample points used165

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
51.9 / 100

12 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 10 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.2 m (~3 floors); 1.7 buildings per 100 m of 703 m perimeter (moderate frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m12
Buildings within 50 m12
Avg edge height8.2 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building15.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)10
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.71 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge17%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)43%
Park perimeter703 m

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

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: 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 (5 types · 10 records)

  • basketball
  • garden
  • picnic
  • playground
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (22)

  • retail: Flemingdon Community Farm0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Spanbridge Rd at Grenoble Dr2 m
  • transit stop: 3692 Grenoble Dr at Spanbridge Rd North Side4 m
  • transit stop: Grenoble Drive East Side15 m
  • transit stop: 9141 Grenoble Dr at Spanbridge Rd16 m
  • transit stop73 m
  • transit stop77 m
  • transit stop98 m
  • transit stop: Spanbridge Rd at Vicora Linkway109 m
  • highway: Don Valley Parkway115 m
  • transit stop: Windy Golfway (South)120 m
  • parking lot123 m
  • parking lot124 m
  • transit stop: Windy Golfway (South)134 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • transit stop: Linkwood Lane at Spanbridge Rd137 m
  • parking lot142 m
  • highway: Don Valley Parkway146 m
  • parking lot180 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureFlemingdon Park
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
    97th
  • Edge activation
    96th
  • Connectivity
    81th
  • Amenity diversity
    92th
  • Natural comfort
    55th
  • 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 Flemingdon Park 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.
  • 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

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.