Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Garrison Common, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Niagara (82)confidence moderate

Garrison Common

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 31, rank ~35th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Garrison Common scores 31.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 4.19 ha

What's here

Recreation
Garden
Facilities
WashroomBenches
Vitality Score
31/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
31.1 / 100
Citywide
35th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
15th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=393)
Performance gap
-8
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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 31 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 · p38
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Amenity Diversity28 · p82
-4.3
Connectivity68 · p89
+3.5
Natural Comfort38 · p32
-1.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p45
+1.1

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

Garrison Common works because its connectivity score (68) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (28) is also top quartile (24 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 10 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Garrison Common is held back by natural comfort (38, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (68, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Garrison Common sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (68) significantly outpaces natural comfort (38): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (61) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • 11 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -8; cohort: medium Neighbourhood Park).
  • Citywide rank is high (35th) but typology rank is more modest (15th): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 4.2 ha, framed by 15 mid-rise vs 11 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (retail, transit_stop) and 16 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%
67.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 20 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 24 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~883 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)20
Sidewalk segments (50 m)8
Transit stops (400 m)24
Estimated entrances7
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.57
Park perimeter883 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, garden, washroom). 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 45%
38.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~4.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~616 m; 24 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.7/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)616 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon24
Tree density5.7 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used261

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
61.2 / 100

35 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 9 low-rise, 11 tower); avg edge height 32.8 m (~11 floors); 4.0 buildings per 100 m of 883 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 11 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m35
Buildings within 50 m35
Avg edge height32.8 m (~11 floors)
Tallest edge building95.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)15
Low-rise (< 3 floors)9
Towers (≥ 13 floors)11
Frontage density3.96 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge43%
Tower share of edge31%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter883 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Western Lead, Oakville Subdivision, rail, Oakville Subdivision, parking_lot, parking_lot, Gardiner Expressway, parking_lot, Oakville Subdivision, Oakville Subdivision, Oakville Subdivision, Oakville Subdivision. 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 (3 types · 3 records)

  • bench
  • garden
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (60)

  • parking lot0 m
  • highway: Gardiner Expressway10 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision13 m
  • rail15 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision16 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision18 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision24 m
  • parking lot26 m
  • rail: Western Lead33 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision39 m
  • parking lot50 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision50 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision67 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision83 m
  • retail: Floral & Decor84 m
  • transit stop84 m
  • parking lot89 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor91 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision101 m
  • rail107 m
  • rail109 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor111 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • parking lot117 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor118 m
  • retail: Wine Rack128 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street130 m
  • rail134 m
  • cafe: Starbucks134 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street134 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor141 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Hub142 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor142 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor145 m
  • transit stop146 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision146 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor148 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Hub148 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street153 m
  • restaurant: Fort York Pizzeria155 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor160 m
  • transit stop160 m
  • transit stop: Fort York Boulevard164 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor167 m
  • restaurant: Forest Hill Farmhouse179 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor180 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor182 m
  • rail: Metrolinx Oakville Subdivision184 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue186 m
  • rail186 m
  • retail: Parisco Market187 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue188 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor193 m
  • transit stop: East Liberty Street194 m
  • cafe: Parisco Cafe195 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision196 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue198 m
  • rail: Oakville Subdivision199 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGarrison Common
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
    35th
  • Edge activation
    38th
  • Connectivity
    89th
  • Amenity diversity
    82th
  • Natural comfort
    32th
  • Enclosure
    45th

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 Garrison Commonmatters. 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.