Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
ParketteType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)New Toronto

Lamp Ground

Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~64th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Lamp Ground, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

Lamp Ground scores 37.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (6.3). 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 · 0.63 ha

What's here

Facilities
Community centre

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 66 m away. None of the 9 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
38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
37.9 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
64th
of all 3,752 parks
Among Parkette
70th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=223)
Performance gap
+1
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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.

Explain this score

Where did the 38 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
Edge Activation6 · p66
-10.9
Amenity Diversity12 · p60
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park70 · p71
+2.0
Natural Comfort48 · p52
-0.3
Connectivity49 · p57
-0.2

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

Lamp Ground works because its enclosure score (70) is above average and its edge activation (6) is also above-average (2 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Lamp Ground 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 (70, above-average).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (70) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 6): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (6283 m²) with strong building frontage (27.7 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
6.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (retail) 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
48.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~318 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)6
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.89
Park perimeter318 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 (community_centre). 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% weightpartial 45%
48.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~14.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~550 m; 20 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (20.0/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)550 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon20
Tree density20.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used43

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
69.5 / 100

88 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 86 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.3 m (~2 floors); 27.7 buildings per 100 m of 318 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m88
Buildings within 50 m88
Avg edge height5.3 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building11.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)86
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density27.71 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge2%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter318 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 · 1 records)

  • community centre

Nearby active-edge features (36)

  • parking lot66 m
  • retail: The Six Convenience91 m
  • parking lot111 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • parking lot160 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • retail: Lakeshore Village Fruit175 m
  • retail: Dollar Way175 m
  • retail176 m
  • retail176 m
  • retail: Valentina's Boutique176 m
  • retail: Delicia Bakery & Pastry176 m
  • restaurant: Olive Kebab176 m
  • retail: Southside Ink177 m
  • retail: Active Green & Ross178 m
  • restaurant: Lucky Dice Restaurant181 m
  • retail: Rhea Flower and Gift Shop182 m
  • restaurant: Da Jankanuu Shak183 m
  • retail: Anna's Shop Cleaner & Alteration184 m
  • retail: Faulkner’s Home Appliances186 m
  • restaurant: Kitchen on 6th186 m
  • restaurant: Halibut House186 m
  • restaurant: Mike's Burgers188 m
  • transit stop: Fifth Street189 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • retail: Advantage Computers190 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West190 m
  • restaurant: Dakota's Sports Bar and Grill192 m
  • restaurant: Tiammada192 m
  • transit stop: Fifth Street193 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Pizza197 m
  • retail: Freedom Mobile198 m
  • transit stop: Birmingham Street199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureLamp Ground
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
    64th
  • Edge activation
    66th
  • Connectivity
    57th
  • Amenity diversity
    60th
  • Natural comfort
    52th
  • Enclosure
    71th

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 Lamp Ground 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.
  • Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
  • 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.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.