Harry W. Arthurs Common
Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 57, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: connectivity.
Harry W. Arthurs Common scores 57.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: amenity diversity (34.5). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 2.42 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 57 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
Harry W. Arthurs Common works because its edge activation score (63) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (35) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).
What limits this park
Harry W. Arthurs Common 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 edge activation (63, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Harry W. Arthurs Common 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 57 versus an expected 39 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +18).
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.4 ha, framed by 15 mid-rise vs 3 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 40 active uses (retail, restaurant, cafe, transit_stop, 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~717 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
4 distinct amenity types in the park (art, bench, garden, picnic). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~21.7% effective canopy (3.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~403 m; 75 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (31.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
21 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 3 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 20.7 m (~7 floors); 2.9 buildings per 100 m of 717 m perimeter (moderate frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum 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
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 (4 types · 62 records)
- art
- bench
- garden
- picnic
Nearby active-edge features (61)
- transit stop0 m
- transit stop0 m
- parking lot4 m
- transit stop8 m
- transit stop: York University10 m
- transit stop: York University15 m
- restaurant16 m
- retail: Gateway21 m
- retail: York University Bookstore25 m
- retail: Value Mobile26 m
- retail: FYidoctors30 m
- transit stop: Glendon - Keele Shuttle32 m
- cafe: The Campus Bubble Tea35 m
- retail: Salon Concepts Spa36 m
- retail: Grocery Checkout36 m
- restaurant: Marry Me Mochi36 m
- restaurant: Firehouse Subs38 m
- restaurant: Pita Land42 m
- restaurant: The Islands Caribbean Cookshop45 m
- restaurant: Pagoda Wok & Grill45 m
- restaurant: Jimmy the Greek45 m
- restaurant: Gino's Pizza45 m
- retail: Timbers Lodge Social Grill45 m
- restaurant: Wendy's45 m
- restaurant: Afro Spice46 m
- retail: INS Market47 m
- transit stop: Markham-Keele Shuttle51 m
- restaurant: Z-Teca Mexican Eatery51 m
- cafe: Starbucks52 m
- restaurant: La Prep55 m
- restaurant: The Great Canadian Bagel57 m
- cafe: Aroma Espresso Bar58 m
- restaurant: Hero Certified Burgers58 m
- restaurant: Thaï Express59 m
- restaurant: Popeyes59 m
- restaurant: Qoola Fresh59 m
- restaurant: Cucina Italian Cafe59 m
- restaurant: Sushi Shop59 m
- restaurant: Chaska Indian Street Food Obsession59 m
- restaurant: Holy Kimchi59 m
- parking lot93 m
- community: Peter F. Bronfman Business Library95 m
- parking lot: York Lanes Parking Garage99 m
- parking lot126 m
- restaurant: Pizza Pizza137 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons142 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons145 m
- restaurant: Booster Juice146 m
- restaurant: Pizza Pizza147 m
- restaurant: Pita Pit147 m
- parking lot152 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons159 m
- parking lot: York Boulevard Lot160 m
- parking lot163 m
- cafe: Palgong Tea165 m
- parking lot: Vanier Lot167 m
- restaurant: Subway174 m
- cafe: Starbucks175 m
- parking lot: Lumbers Lot177 m
- cafe: The Break Café182 m
- parking lot186 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality98th
- Edge activation98th
- Connectivity61th
- Amenity diversity89th
- Natural comfort72th
- Enclosure75th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Dr. Lillian McGregor ParkUrban Plaza56
- City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza55
- Diamond Jubilee PromenadeCorridor / Linear Park58
- HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building GroundsParkette54
- Maple Claire ParkNeighbourhood Park60
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
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 Harry W. Arthurs 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.
What would improve this park?
Generated from the weakest measured dimensions: a starting point, not a prescription.
- Diversify what people can do in the park (playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden): even small additions raise this score.
Data sources
- 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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.