Hollis Kalmar Park
Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 32, rank ~37th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: amenity diversity.
No photograph yet. If you have one of Hollis Kalmar Park, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoAerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Data updated
Hollis Kalmar Park scores 31.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 1.22 ha
Getting around
163 m of mapped path, 100% paved.
No steps mapped on the path network.
No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.
Nearest parking 94 m away. 1 of 3 nearby lots reporting 2 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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%
Data confidence: moderate
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 32 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
Hollis Kalmar Park works because its natural comfort score (84) is in the top tier and its connectivity (65) is also top quartile (48% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).
What limits this park
Hollis Kalmar Park is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (84, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Hollis Kalmar Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Tradeoffs
- High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.
Typology classification
Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 61% ravine overlap, 48% canopy. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (1.2 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 19 dead/hostile uses (rail, highway, 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 15 street intersections within 100 m; 9 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~635 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 47.7% estimated tree canopy; 61.4% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~742 m; 7 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.7/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, 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. All data sources.
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
94 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 94 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.4 m (~1 floors); 14.8 buildings per 100 m of 635 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Danforth Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Danforth Avenue. 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
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 (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (46)
- rail: Kingston Subdivision10 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision11 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision13 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue15 m
- transit stop: Warden Ave at Hollis Ave16 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision16 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision18 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision19 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision20 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision21 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue27 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue27 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision28 m
- transit stop: Danforth Ave @ Medford Ave32 m
- transit stop: Warden Ave at Clonmore Dr40 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue41 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue44 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue49 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue58 m
- transit stop: Clonmore Dr at Warden Ave69 m
- retail: Active Auto Repairs80 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue85 m
- transit stop: Warden Ave at Danforth Ave86 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue90 m
- parking lot94 m
- transit stop: Danforth Ave at Warden Ave106 m
- transit stop: Danforth Ave at Warden Ave108 m
- retail: Skymark Travel Inc.115 m
- transit stop: Warden Ave at Danforth Ave130 m
- transit stop: Danforth Ave at Eastwood Ave137 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue138 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue139 m
- transit stop: Eastwood Avenue144 m
- retail151 m
- parking lot152 m
- retail: Prince Vape162 m
- transit stop: 3555 Danforth Avenue168 m
- restaurant: BD Fusion173 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue173 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue174 m
- parking lot178 m
- retail: BD Fresh Foods178 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue178 m
- transit stop: 3450 Danforth Avenue187 m
- retail: Kausar Fresh Foods190 m
- restaurant: Madinah195 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality37th
- Edge activation24th
- Connectivity84th
- Amenity diversity14th
- Natural comfort95th
- Enclosure40th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Pinetree ParkRavine / Naturalized Park40
- Amberdale Ravine ParkRavine / Naturalized Park42
- Cliffside RavineRavine / Naturalized Park41
- Chipping ParkRavine / Naturalized Park38
- Reid Manor ParkWaterfront Park39
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Marita Paine ParkOther47
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park76
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 Hollis Kalmar Park 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.
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.
- 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
- City of Toronto Open Data: Green SpacesPolygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.