Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
GEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood ParkType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Keelesdale-Eglinton West

GEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of GEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

GEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds scores 36 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (8). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 2.50 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports field

Getting around

Paths

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

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. 1 of 10 nearby lots reporting 1 accessible space.

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
36/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
36.0 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
56th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
28th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
40
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=357)
Performance gap
-4
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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.

Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.

Explain this score

Where did the 36 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 Activation8 · p67
-10.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p64
-7.6
Connectivity64 · p83
+2.9
Natural Comfort35 · p24
-2.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park71 · p73
+2.1
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4

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

GEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds works because its connectivity score (64) is above average and its enclosure (71) is also above-average (17 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

GEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (35, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (64, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

GEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (64) significantly outpaces natural comfort (35): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (71) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 8): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (56th) but typology rank is more modest (28th): 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: 2.5 ha, framed by 7 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
8.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 4 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%
64.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 28 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 17 street intersections within 100 m; 10 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~762 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m13
Intersections within 100 m17
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)28
Transit stops (400 m)10 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 10 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.71
Park perimeter762 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (sports_field). 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% weightpartial 45%
35.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~436 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/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)436 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon5
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used175

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
70.8 / 100

170 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 163 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.4 m (~2 floors); 22.3 buildings per 100 m of 762 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m170
Buildings within 50 m170
Avg edge height5.4 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building14.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)163
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density22.30 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge4%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter762 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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: 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (28)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Donald Avenue5 m
  • transit stop: Keele St at Donald Ave18 m
  • parking lot20 m
  • transit stop83 m
  • retail87 m
  • parking lot95 m
  • retail107 m
  • parking lot118 m
  • restaurant: Mastro Nick128 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • retail: Brindle Automotive Repairs136 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • retail141 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • restaurant: Fay's Kitchen146 m
  • restaurant153 m
  • transit stop: Bicknell Avenue154 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • transit stop161 m
  • retail162 m
  • retail: Vin Bon164 m
  • retail: Guytech Auto Service Inc.167 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • transit stop: Bicknell Avenue171 m
  • transit stop: Rogers Road188 m
  • retail: Value Village197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds
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
    56th
  • Edge activation
    67th
  • Connectivity
    83th
  • Amenity diversity
    64th
  • Natural comfort
    24th
  • Enclosure
    73th

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 GEORGE HARVEY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds 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.
  • 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.