Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Grange Park, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Kensington-Chinatown (78)confidence moderate

Grange Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 65, rank ~100th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Silvana Klaric Boricic via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Grange Park scores 64.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: natural comfort (41.1). 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 · 1.93 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundOff-leash dog areaGarden
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaBenchesFountainPublic art
Vitality Score
65/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
64.5 / 100
Citywide
100th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=393)
Performance gap
+25
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Grange Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view.City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 65 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
Connectivity79 · p98
+5.7
Enclosure / Eyes on Park90 · p96
+4.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Edge Activation56 · p97
+1.5
Natural Comfort41 · p38
-1.3
Amenity Diversity54 · p99
+0.8

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

Grange Park works because its amenity diversity score (54) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (79) is also top decile (9 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Grange Park doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (54, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (79) significantly outpaces natural comfort (41): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • 7 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 65 versus an expected 39 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +25).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.9 ha, framed by 53 mid-rise vs 7 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
56.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 24 active uses (restaurant, retail, cafe, community) and 3 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
78.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 36 mapped paths/walkways and 27 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 23 street intersections within 100 m; 34 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~746 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m11
Intersections within 100 m23
Paths/walkways (50 m)36
Sidewalk segments (50 m)27
Transit stops (400 m)34
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.47
Park perimeter746 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
54.1 / 100

9 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area, playground, washroom, art, bench, drinking_water, …). 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 30%
41.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~9.1% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 25 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (12.9/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon25
Tree density12.9 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used135

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
90.0 / 100

87 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (53 mid-rise, 27 low-rise, 7 tower); avg edge height 17.3 m (~6 floors); 11.7 buildings per 100 m of 746 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 7 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 53 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m87
Buildings within 50 m87
Avg edge height17.3 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building68.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)53
Low-rise (< 3 floors)27
Towers (≥ 13 floors)7
Frontage density11.66 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge61%
Tower share of edge8%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter746 m

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

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: 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 (9 types · 86 records)

  • dog area
  • playground
  • washroom
  • art
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • fountain
  • garden
  • picnic

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • community: Toronto Chinese Baptist Church Senior Citizen Centre30 m
  • retail: June Hairdresser On Fire34 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • parking lot52 m
  • cafe: Thor Espresso52 m
  • retail: Cheers Smoke Shop56 m
  • retail: Carolyn McAuley Hair Studio57 m
  • restaurant: McDonald's77 m
  • cafe: Coffee Exchange79 m
  • restaurant: Kezy Döner80 m
  • restaurant: Wafflian81 m
  • cafe: Ka-Nom82 m
  • restaurant: Manpuku83 m
  • restaurant: Village by the Grange84 m
  • restaurant: La Sani Grill84 m
  • restaurant: The Bowl Korean Food84 m
  • restaurant: Karine's86 m
  • retail: Grange Green Farms88 m
  • cafe: Fruiteao90 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • restaurant: Sushi Cafe Bon Gung92 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes94 m
  • restaurant: Pho 36994 m
  • retail: OCAD U Copy & Print Services95 m
  • restaurant: Jaffna Street Food96 m
  • restaurant: Thai Bright98 m
  • retail: Umbra98 m
  • restaurant: Tasty Chinese Food100 m
  • restaurant: Black Mill Tea102 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • retail: Grange Lottery & News103 m
  • restaurant: Nai Nai104 m
  • restaurant: The Fresh Italian Eatery105 m
  • transit stop: Beverley Street106 m
  • restaurant: Eats Manilla106 m
  • transit stop: Beverley Street106 m
  • retail: Jerk King109 m
  • retail: Lucky Moose Food Mart110 m
  • transit stop: Stephanie Street114 m
  • restaurant: All Spice Jerk Express114 m
  • restaurant: Yakiniku Legend118 m
  • transit stop: McCaul Street118 m
  • retail: Vivi Spa119 m
  • cafe: Tuck Shop Provisions121 m
  • retail: Wizard Market122 m
  • community: Dorothy H. Hoover Library122 m
  • retail: Get Me Fly122 m
  • restaurant: Top Bistro123 m
  • retail: Ye Perfect Nail & Spa125 m
  • retail: Queen Dry Cleaners128 m
  • retail: Perfect X Hair128 m
  • restaurant: DZO128 m
  • restaurant: Pizzaiolo128 m
  • cafe: Evana Cafe & Lounge129 m
  • retail: Emo Paints129 m
  • retail: Cowley Abbott Canada’s Art Auctioneers130 m
  • restaurant: Oh My Gyro!131 m
  • cafe: Mersivity131 m
  • retail: Star Vape131 m
  • retail: Emo Paints131 m
  • restaurant: Lili Kitchen131 m
  • transit stop: McCaul Street131 m
  • restaurant: Village Idiot Pub132 m
  • retail: Village Custom Cleaners132 m
  • retail: Baro Natural134 m
  • retail: Perfect Threading & Beauty Salon134 m
  • restaurant: Chengdu Street Food134 m
  • restaurant: The Katsu & Salmon134 m
  • restaurant: Patchmon’s Thai Desserts137 m
  • retail: The Tec Fixer139 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • cafe: The Library Specialty Coffee141 m
  • retail: Glo Nails Studio145 m
  • retail: Gardenview Convenience145 m
  • restaurant: Gallery Sushi145 m
  • retail: Opteaq Eyecare146 m
  • cafe: Nord Lyon Cafe146 m
  • retail: Tribal Rhythm146 m
  • retail: New You Spa146 m
  • retail: BMV Books147 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGrange 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
    100th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    99th
  • Natural comfort
    38th
  • Enclosure
    96th

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

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores. Partial coverage, partial confidence.

sample illustrative dataconfidence 25%
Overall activity53 / 100
53.2 / 100
Programming / events
56sample
Social attention
47sample
Temporal rhythm
50sample
Pedestrian / cycling flow
59sample
Cultural significance
55sample

Activity reading: 24 events/yr (8 recurring); 1,500 public mentions; pedestrian intensity 70/100; cycling/trail 50/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. These are illustrative sample values. Calibrate before citing.

Sample data: numbers shown here are an illustrative fixture for the 10 named parks, not a measurement.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Grange Parkmatters. 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.

  • 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: 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.