Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)York University Heights (27)confidence moderate

175 The Pond Road Park

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 31, rank ~37th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

175 The Pond Road Park scores 31.4 / 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.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 1.45 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports field
Vitality Score
31/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
31.4 / 100
Citywide
37th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Other
70th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Other (n=181)
Performance gap
+2
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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 31 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 · p61
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p66
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity42 · p45
-1.5
Natural Comfort43 · p42
-1.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park53 · p24
+0.3

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

175 The Pond Road Park works because its amenity diversity score (12) is middle of the pack and its edge activation (0) is also above-average.

What limits this park

175 The Pond Road Park is held back by enclosure (53, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (53, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

175 The Pond Road Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • Although its citywide rank is low (37th), it ranks highly among similar others (70th): strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (1.5 ha, 1 amenity types, frontage 1.4/100m)

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% weightmeasured 85%
42.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 11 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 4 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~492 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)11
Transit stops (400 m)4
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.02
Park perimeter492 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 (sports_field). 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%
43.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~6.7% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~88 m; 14 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (9.6/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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)88 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon14
Tree density9.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used100

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
52.9 / 100

7 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 19.5 m (~7 floors); 1.4 buildings per 100 m of 492 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m7
Buildings within 50 m7
Avg edge height19.5 m (~7 floors)
Tallest edge building51.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)2
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density1.42 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge43%
Tower share of edge29%
Blank-edge share (proxy)53%
Park perimeter492 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Passy Crescent Visitors 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 (1 types · 2 records)

  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (7)

  • parking lot: Passy Crescent Visitors Lot45 m
  • parking lot: Passy Crescent Lot62 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot124 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • parking lot: Nelson Road Lot186 m
  • parking lot190 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosure175 The Pond Road 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
    37th
  • Edge activation
    61th
  • Connectivity
    45th
  • Amenity diversity
    66th
  • Natural comfort
    42th
  • Enclosure
    24th

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 175 The Pond Road 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.
  • 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: 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.