Applewood Hills
Other, near the bottom of the city overall (score 22, rank ~6th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: connectivity.
Applewood Hills scores 21.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (84). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 28.12 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 49%
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 22 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
Applewood Hills works because its amenity diversity score (21) is above average and its natural comfort (50) is also above-average.
What limits this park
Applewood Hills is held back by connectivity (18, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (84).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low connectivity (18, bottom quartile).
Jacobs reading
Applewood Hills is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.
Tradeoffs
- Natural comfort (50) significantly outpaces connectivity (18): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
Performance in context
- Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -8; cohort: very large Other).
Typology classification
Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (28.1 ha, 2 amenity types, frontage 0.0/100m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 active uses (transit_stop, school, restaurant, retail) and 9 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 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 43 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~7,614 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
2 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, 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
Natural Comfort requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.
Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
No buildings within 50 m of this park edge, typical of ravines, watercourses, and hydro corridors. Enclosure is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence; for natural areas, this metric is essentially not applicable.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (2 types · 7 records)
- bench
- playground
Nearby active-edge features (64)
- transit stop: Bloor Street at Grand Forks Road0 m
- parking lot9 m
- transit stop: Bloor Street at Queen Frederica Drive12 m
- parking lot24 m
- parking lot27 m
- parking lot40 m
- school: Golden Orchard Montessori41 m
- parking lot46 m
- parking lot46 m
- parking lot49 m
- transit stop: Dixie Road South Of Golden Orchard Drive60 m
- retail: Mission Thrift Store61 m
- restaurant: Havelly Grill63 m
- parking lot74 m
- transit stop: Dixie Road At Golden Orchard Drive79 m
- transit stop: Golden Orchard Drive82 m
- parking lot87 m
- transit stop: Rathburn Road At Golden Orchard Drive92 m
- transit stop: Corbet Drive95 m
- restaurant: Mary Brown's99 m
- retail: easyfinancial103 m
- retail: Cozy Foot Spa108 m
- transit stop: Lovingston Crescent110 m
- retail: Popeye's Supplements111 m
- parking lot112 m
- retail: Nails 4 U117 m
- transit stop121 m
- transit stop: Dixie Road At Golden Orchard Road121 m
- parking lot122 m
- parking lot123 m
- retail: Goldstar Convenience124 m
- transit stop: Dixie Road 3105 Dixie Road125 m
- parking lot125 m
- restaurant: Pho-Com 99133 m
- retail: AJA Hair Salon141 m
- transit stop: Rathburn Road At Golden Orchard Drive142 m
- parking lot143 m
- parking lot143 m
- transit stop: Golden Orchard Drive146 m
- parking lot148 m
- parking lot149 m
- retail149 m
- parking lot151 m
- parking lot154 m
- retail: Star Convenience & Video155 m
- parking lot161 m
- retail: Star Convenience171 m
- retail: Applewood Optical172 m
- restaurant: The Laneway Bar173 m
- retail: Pop’s Cannabis173 m
- retail: You Lucky Dog174 m
- transit stop: Bloor Street at Golden Orchard Drive174 m
- retail: Your Independent Grocer175 m
- restaurant: 241 Pizza175 m
- retail: LCBO176 m
- transit stop: Bloor Street at Golden Orchard Drive176 m
- parking lot179 m
- restaurant: China China Palace179 m
- retail: Franco’s Barber Shop182 m
- retail: Mirage Salon & Spa182 m
- transit stop: Bloor Street at Runningbrook Drive185 m
- parking lot188 m
- retail: DOT Furniture194 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons196 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality6th
- Edge activation62th
- Connectivity15th
- Amenity diversity77th
- Natural comfort64th
- Enclosure22th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Stonebrook ParkOther25
- Bayview Reservoir ParkOther26
- Parkway GreenOther30
- Bathurst Estates ParkOther30
- Bella Vista ParkOther27
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park75
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza67
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 Applewood Hillsmatters. 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.
- 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.
- Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.
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.