Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)confidence low

Via Campanile Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, middle of the pack overall (score 33, rank ~45th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

Via Campanile Park scores 33.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. 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.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 2.52 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennis
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
33/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 46%

Data Confidence
33.2 / 100
Citywide
45th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
35th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park (n=113)
Performance gap
-5
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

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 33 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 Activation0 · p58
-12.5
Connectivity25 · p21
-5.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Amenity Diversity35 · p89
-3.1
Natural Comfort50 · p60
+0.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park50 · p19
+0.0

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

Via Campanile Park works because its amenity diversity score (35) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (50) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Via Campanile Park is held back by enclosure (50, bottom quartile): no mid-rise frontage to provide eyes on the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (35, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (50) significantly outpaces connectivity (25): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -5; cohort: medium Athletic / Recreation Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 50% of amenity types are athletic (sports_field, tennis)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 2 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% weightinferred 30%
25.0 / 100

0 transit stops within 400 m of the park edge (OSM-derived). City Pedestrian Network + Street Centreline returned no nearby segments for this park (common for ravine fragments) so the rest of the connectivity components default to neutral 50.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m0
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)0
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter648 m

Source: OSM transit stops only (Centreline + Pedestrian Network not present near this park)

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
34.5 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, playground, sports_field, tennis). 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 15%
50.0 / 100

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.

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used175

Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightinferred 20%
50.0 / 100

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.

Buildings within 25 m0
Buildings within 50 m0
Avg edge height0.0 m (~0 floors)
Tallest edge building0.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)0
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)100%
Park perimeter648 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 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

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 (4 types · 16 records)

  • bench
  • playground
  • sports field
  • tennis

Nearby active-edge features (2)

  • parking lot4 m
  • parking lot92 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureVia Campanile Park
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
    45th
  • Edge activation
    58th
  • Connectivity
    21th
  • Amenity diversity
    89th
  • Natural comfort
    60th
  • Enclosure
    19th

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 Via Campanile 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.

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.

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.