June Rowlands Park
Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 59, rank ~99th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.
Photo by S K via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
June Rowlands Park scores 58.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (33.8). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 2.76 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 59 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
June Rowlands Park works because its amenity diversity score (55) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (87) is also top decile (10 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).
What limits this park
June Rowlands Park 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 amenity diversity (55, top decile).
Jacobs reading
June Rowlands Park 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 59 versus an expected 39 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +20).
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.8 ha, framed by 16 mid-rise vs 13 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 27 active uses (transit_stop, retail, school, restaurant) and 6 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 10 mapped paths/walkways and 25 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~667 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
Amenity Diversity
10 distinct amenity types in the park (picnic, playground, sports_field, tennis, washroom, bench, …). 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: ~20.3% effective canopy (3.1% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~957 m; 80 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (29.0/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
116 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (16 mid-rise, 87 low-rise, 13 tower); avg edge height 14.8 m (~5 floors); 17.4 buildings per 100 m of 667 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 13 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 16 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 (10 types · 25 records)
- picnic
- playground
- sports field
- tennis
- washroom
- bench
- drinking water
- garden
- shelter
- table tennis
Nearby active-edge features (63)
- transit stop: Acacia Road0 m
- transit stop: Mount Pleasant Road West Side5 m
- transit stop: Davisville Avenue5 m
- retail: Eye Studio18 m
- transit stop: Mount Pleasant Road19 m
- restaurant: Subway21 m
- retail: Saati Fine Jewellery28 m
- transit stop: Acacia Road29 m
- restaurant: Starving Artist Waffles & Espresso29 m
- restaurant: Millwood Bread & Butter31 m
- retail: Second Nature Boutique32 m
- transit stop: Mount Pleasant Road37 m
- retail: Mountain Convenience37 m
- restaurant: Sushi Supreme43 m
- parking lot43 m
- transit stop: Davisville Avenue46 m
- retail: Neptune Hairstyling46 m
- retail: Pampered Paws49 m
- restaurant: Krabi Thai Cuisine52 m
- retail: Ixxy Vape53 m
- parking lot55 m
- parking lot56 m
- retail: Bob's Cleaners56 m
- retail: E. Bapst Custom Upholstering61 m
- restaurant: Hazel's Diner65 m
- restaurant: Wild Chicory71 m
- school: Toronto Prep School72 m
- retail: Tech-Net Professional Auto Service73 m
- retail: CCMH Toronto Student Intern Clinic75 m
- parking lot79 m
- parking lot85 m
- transit stop: Belsize Drive92 m
- parking lot95 m
- parking lot109 m
- transit stop: Belsize Drive111 m
- retail: Mabel’s Fables116 m
- parking lot121 m
- restaurant: The Belsize Public House121 m
- retail: The Box Spot123 m
- parking lot137 m
- retail: Manderley Fine Furniture146 m
- restaurant: Marigold Indian Bistro147 m
- retail: Brentview Electronics151 m
- parking lot157 m
- parking lot161 m
- retail: Durant Sessions162 m
- restaurant: Instant Du Palais166 m
- retail: Elly Amar Studio167 m
- retail: Livingstone & Co.171 m
- retail: Frame Master172 m
- parking lot175 m
- parking lot176 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons178 m
- retail: Circle K178 m
- parking lot179 m
- parking lot181 m
- retail: Royal Antiques Rug Gallery184 m
- retail: Helene Clarkson190 m
- parking lot191 m
- parking lot192 m
- parking lot197 m
- restaurant: OffCourt Bistro197 m
- retail: Jacaranda Tree & Co.198 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality99th
- Edge activation90th
- Connectivity92th
- Amenity diversity99th
- Natural comfort69th
- Enclosure93th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Baird ParkNeighbourhood Park59
- Stanley Park North - TorontoNeighbourhood Park56
- Wanless ParkNeighbourhood Park55
- Jonathan Ashbridge ParkNeighbourhood Park57
- Moss ParkNeighbourhood Park59
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
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.
“Small neighborhood park with a baseball diamond, 6 tennis courts, a volleyball court & splash pad.” (Google editorial summary)
p93 citywide · p90 within Neighbourhood Park
Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
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 June Rowlands Parkmatters. 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.
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.