Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
ParketteType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Danforth East York

HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds

Parkette, one of the city's strongest overall (score 53, rank ~96th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Holy Cross Catholic School via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds scores 52.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (21). 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 · 0.90 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundBasketball

Getting around

Paths

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

1 flight of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. 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
53/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
52.8 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
96th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Parkette
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=222)
Performance gap
+16
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.
HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds, 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.

Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.

Explain this score

Where did the 53 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 Diversity21 · p75
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park78 · p81
+2.8
Connectivity61 · p77
+2.1
Natural Comfort46 · p48
-0.6
Edge Activation52 · p96
+0.5

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

HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (52) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (78) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds 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 (52, top decile).

Jacobs reading

HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds 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 53 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (small Parkette) (gap +16).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (8992 m²) with strong building frontage (28.1 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
52.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (retail, transit_stop) and 1 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
60.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 11 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~406 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)19
Transit stops (400 m)11 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 11 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.97
Park perimeter406 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, playground). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
46.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~12.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~933 m; 18 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (18.0/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)933 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon18
Tree density18.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used62

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
77.5 / 100

114 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (8 mid-rise, 105 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 6.5 m (~2 floors); 28.1 buildings per 100 m of 406 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 8 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m114
Buildings within 50 m114
Avg edge height6.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building40.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)8
Low-rise (< 3 floors)105
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density28.10 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge7%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter406 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (2 types · 3 records)

  • basketball
  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (12)

  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Cosburn Avenue20 m
  • retail: Shopping Basket22 m
  • transit stop: Donlands Ave at Memorial Park Ave26 m
  • retail: Hair & More Salon32 m
  • retail: Blaircourt Convenience33 m
  • transit stop: Cosburn Avenue36 m
  • transit stop: Donlands Ave at Floyd Ave42 m
  • transit stop: Cosburn Ave at Donlands Ave46 m
  • transit stop: Cosburn Ave at Donlands Ave63 m
  • transit stop136 m
  • restaurant: Ritz Restaurant144 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds
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
    96th
  • Edge activation
    96th
  • Connectivity
    77th
  • Amenity diversity
    75th
  • Natural comfort
    48th
  • Enclosure
    81th

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 HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds 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: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.