Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Gerrard - Carlaw Traffic Island, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)South Riverdale (70)confidence moderate

Gerrard - Carlaw Traffic Island

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~58th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Gerrard - Carlaw Traffic Island scores 36.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (16.7). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (72). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.30 ha

What's here

Recreation
Off-leash dog areaGarden
Vitality Score
36/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
36.4 / 100
Citywide
58th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
39th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=115)
Performance gap
-5
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 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 Activation17 · p74
-8.3
Amenity Diversity21 · p71
-5.8
Natural Comfort23 · p2
-4.1
Connectivity69 · p91
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park79 · p83
+2.9
Border Vacuum Risk72 (risk)
-2.2

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

Gerrard - Carlaw Traffic Island works because its connectivity score (69) is in the top tier and its enclosure (79) is also top quartile (19 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 14 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Gerrard - Carlaw Traffic Island is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (72).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (23, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Gerrard - Carlaw Traffic Island sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (69) significantly outpaces natural comfort (23): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (79) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (72): 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 -5; cohort: small Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2966 m², paved (0% canopy), 13.8 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
16.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 16 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 7 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
69.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 25 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~326 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m12
Intersections within 100 m14
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)25
Transit stops (400 m)19
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.68
Park perimeter326 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area, garden). 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% weightinferred 24%
22.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1191 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)1,191 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used19

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
79.3 / 100

45 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (8 mid-rise, 37 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.6 m (~3 floors); 13.8 buildings per 100 m of 326 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 8 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m45
Buildings within 50 m45
Avg edge height7.6 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building16.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)8
Low-rise (< 3 floors)37
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density13.82 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge18%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter326 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
72.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, 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: 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 (2 types · 4 records)

  • dog area
  • garden

Nearby active-edge features (41)

  • rail: Kingston Subdivision0 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision0 m
  • transit stop: Carlaw Avenue8 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East25 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East26 m
  • retail: Italy Hair Design34 m
  • transit stop: Carlaw Avenue35 m
  • restaurant: Nganda39 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • retail: Oriental Hair Salon44 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • retail: Josie's Lock and Key48 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Pide49 m
  • restaurant: The Real Jerk51 m
  • retail: 18 K Mutts51 m
  • transit stop: Pape Avenue53 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision57 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision59 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East61 m
  • transit stop: Pape Avenue82 m
  • transit stop: Pape Avenue85 m
  • restaurant: Maker Pizza86 m
  • retail: Tom Precision Auto Service Centre104 m
  • restaurant: Maple Leaf Tavern107 m
  • retail115 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision146 m
  • rail: Kingston Subdivision149 m
  • restaurant: Wynona170 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons171 m
  • transit stop174 m
  • restaurant: East End Vine176 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • parking lot179 m
  • retail: Value Mobile;Lifestyle Healthcare184 m
  • retail: Arsema Variety190 m
  • retail: Guo Jewellery194 m
  • transit stop: Logan Avenue195 m
  • retail197 m
  • retail198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGerrard - Carlaw Traffic Island
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
    58th
  • Edge activation
    74th
  • Connectivity
    91th
  • Amenity diversity
    71th
  • Natural comfort
    2th
  • Enclosure
    83th

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 Gerrard - Carlaw Traffic Islandmatters. 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.