Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Hickorynut Parkette, site photograph
Back to map
ParketteType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Pleasant View

Hickorynut Parkette

Parkette, in the top tier overall (score 51, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Silver Dovelet, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Hickorynut Parkette scores 50.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: amenity diversity (19.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.23 ha

What's here

Facilities
Drinking waterBenches

Getting around

Paths

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

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (3 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 111 m away. None of the 1 nearby lot records whether it has accessible spaces.

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
51/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
50.9 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
94th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Parkette
96th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in pocket Parkette (n=296)
Performance gap
+20
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.
Hickorynut Parkette, 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 51 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
Amenity Diversity20 · p66
-6.0
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p58
+1.4
Natural Comfort42 · p40
-1.2
Edge Activation54 · p97
+0.9
Connectivity54 · p65
+0.7

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

Hickorynut Parkette works because its edge activation score (54) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (20) is also above-average (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Hickorynut Parkette 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 (54, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Hickorynut Parkette 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 51 versus an expected 31 for similar parks (pocket Parkette) (gap +20).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (2346 m²) with strong building frontage (10.2 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
53.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%
53.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 11 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~196 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)11
Transit stops (400 m)20
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.53
Park perimeter196 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
19.9 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (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 36%
42.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~9.1% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1143 m; 13 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (13.0/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)1,143 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon13
Tree density13.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used23

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.1 / 100

20 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 19 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 7.3 m (~2 floors); 10.2 buildings per 100 m of 196 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m20
Buildings within 50 m20
Avg edge height7.3 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building44.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)19
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density10.18 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge5%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter196 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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)

  • bench
  • drinking water

Nearby active-edge features (13)

  • transit stop: Sheppard Avenue at Settlers Road4 m
  • restaurant: Chuck E. Cheese31 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Avenue at Settlers Road43 m
  • retail: Procuts48 m
  • retail: Winners52 m
  • restaurant: Buk Chang Dong Soon Tofu69 m
  • restaurant: Paramount Fine Foods82 m
  • parking lot111 m
  • retail: Food Basics137 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue West Side176 m
  • retail: Hello Neighbours191 m
  • restaurant: A&W191 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHickorynut Parkette
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
    94th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    65th
  • Amenity diversity
    66th
  • Natural comfort
    40th
  • Enclosure
    58th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score29 / 100
29.1 / 100

p15 citywide · p15 within Parkette

Volume (saturated)1
Density / ha20
Rating contribution75
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.0
out of 5
Ratings collected
6
total reviews
Photos uploaded
0
total contributors
  • no public photos uploaded

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.94 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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.

confidence 50%
Overall activity8 / 100
8.0 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
11real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
24unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Hickorynut Parkette 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.

  • 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.

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.