Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Jeff Sloan Playground, site photograph
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)The Beaches

Jeff Sloan Playground

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 46, rank ~89th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Jeff Sloan Playground, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Jeff Sloan Playground scores 46.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.17 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 143 m away. None of the 3 nearby lots 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
46/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
46.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
89th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
80th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=360)
Performance gap
+9
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest 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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 46 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 Diversity12 · p58
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Edge Activation33 · p89
-4.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park87 · p93
+3.7
Natural Comfort41 · p38
-1.4
Connectivity54 · p66
+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

Jeff Sloan Playground works because its enclosure score (87) is in the top tier and its edge activation (33) is also top quartile (13 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Jeff Sloan Playground 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 enclosure (87, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Strong physical conditions (score 46) but weak observed activity signals (7). The model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+9 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1728 m², paved (0% canopy), 49.1 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
33.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop) 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%
53.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 22 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~167 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)9
Transit stops (400 m)22
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.40
Park perimeter167 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (playground). 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%
40.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~6.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~669 m; 9 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (9.0/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)669 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon9
Tree density9.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used15

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
87.1 / 100

82 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (13 mid-rise, 69 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.7 m (~3 floors); 49.1 buildings per 100 m of 167 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 13 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m82
Buildings within 50 m82
Avg edge height7.7 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building11.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)13
Low-rise (< 3 floors)69
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density49.13 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge16%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter167 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 (1 types · 2 records)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (9)

  • transit stop: Dundas Street East82 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street East86 m
  • transit stop: Columbine Avenue97 m
  • transit stop: Dixon Avenue114 m
  • transit stop: Dixon Avenue115 m
  • retail: Toby's Food Market140 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • parking lot189 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureJeff Sloan Playground
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
    89th
  • Edge activation
    89th
  • Connectivity
    66th
  • Amenity diversity
    58th
  • Natural comfort
    38th
  • Enclosure
    93th

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.

confidence 50%
Overall activity7 / 100
6.6 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
8real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
15unknown

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 Jeff Sloan Playground 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.

  • 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.
  • 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.