MAURICE CODY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds
Athletic / Recreation Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~76th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: connectivity.
No photograph yet. If you have one of MAURICE CODY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoAerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Data updated
MAURICE CODY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 41.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 1.17 ha
What's here
Getting around
111 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.
No steps mapped on the path network.
No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.
Parking inside the park. None of the 6 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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%
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.Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.
Explain this score
Where did the 41 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
MAURICE CODY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (35) is in the top tier and its enclosure (78) is also top quartile.
What limits this park
MAURICE CODY COMMUNITY CENTRE - 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 amenity diversity (35, top quartile).
Jacobs reading
MAURICE CODY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds 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 (78) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
Typology classification
Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 50% of amenity types are athletic (sports_field, track). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (1.2 ha, framed by 8 mid-rise vs 0 towers).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 15 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 6 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~460 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
4 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, playground, sports_field, track). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~21.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1189 m; 35 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (29.9/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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
137 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (8 mid-rise, 129 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.8 m (~2 floors); 29.8 buildings per 100 m of 460 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 8 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: 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
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 (4 types · 7 records)
- community centre
- playground
- sports field
- track
Nearby active-edge features (45)
- parking lot0 m
- parking lot151 m
- parking lot164 m
- parking lot165 m
- parking lot171 m
- retail: Kim's Nails Salon Too182 m
- cafe: Two Wheels Cafe183 m
- restaurant: Rahier Patisserie185 m
- restaurant: Mayrik185 m
- restaurant: The Bagel House186 m
- retail: The Daughter186 m
- retail: Gold Hollow186 m
- retail: Alex Farm Products186 m
- retail: McSorley's Wonderful Saloon187 m
- restaurant: Grillies187 m
- restaurant: Satay on the Road187 m
- restaurant: My Roti Place/My Dosa Place187 m
- restaurant: Lemongrass187 m
- restaurant: Buono Ristorante188 m
- retail: FARA Beauty Lounge188 m
- retail: The Flower Patch188 m
- restaurant: Eggstatic188 m
- retail: Hairscapes188 m
- retail: Cornflower Blue188 m
- restaurant: Tiarré's Brunch N Cakes188 m
- retail: Bayview Natural Food188 m
- restaurant: Duff's Famous Wings188 m
- restaurant: Fukui Sushi188 m
- retail: Bike Depot188 m
- retail: La muse188 m
- restaurant: Ramona's Kitchen188 m
- retail: Patisserie La Cigogne188 m
- restaurant: Mirage Mediterranean Restaurant188 m
- parking lot: Impark189 m
- restaurant: Jing Chinese Restaurant190 m
- retail: Leaside Pets190 m
- retail: Bomou Artisanal Bakery190 m
- retail: The Smokin' Cigar Inc.190 m
- restaurant: Jyugoya Japanese Restaurant191 m
- restaurant: Hollywood Gelato192 m
- retail: The Glam Bar Nails & Spa193 m
- retail: West Coast Kids196 m
- restaurant: Wild Wing197 m
- retail: Vizi197 m
- retail198 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality76th
- Edge activation62th
- Connectivity60th
- Amenity diversity88th
- Natural comfort65th
- Enclosure82th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Pelham Avenue PlaygroundUrban Plaza41
- Cudmore Creek ParkRavine / Naturalized Park42
- Etobicoke Civic CentreCivic Square32
- Dixon ParkAthletic / Recreation Park42
- LAWRENCE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building GroundAthletic / Recreation Park40
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park76
- Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza68
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 MAURICE CODY COMMUNITY CENTRE - 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.
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.
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.