Roseberry Park
Other, near the bottom of the city overall (score 24, rank ~10th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: connectivity.
No photograph yet. If you have one of Roseberry Park, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoData updated
Roseberry Park scores 24.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.53 ha
Getting around
176 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 4 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 40%
Data confidence: low
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 24 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
Roseberry Park works because its natural comfort score (50) is middle of the pack.
What limits this park
Roseberry Park is held back by connectivity (14, bottom quartile).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low connectivity (14, bottom quartile).
Jacobs reading
Roseberry 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 (14): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
Typology classification
Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (0.5 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 0.0/100m)
Edge Activation
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: 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 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 8 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~311 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.
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: Not loaded yet: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees. All data sources.
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). 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 (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (17)
- parking lot0 m
- parking lot93 m
- retail: M Medi Spa123 m
- retail: Anlashtic Brow123 m
- retail: 520 Salon124 m
- restaurant: bb.q Chicken127 m
- cafe: Comebuy132 m
- restaurant: Poke Guys133 m
- retail134 m
- retail137 m
- retail: Togethir140 m
- restaurant: Poke Guys144 m
- transit stop: Birchmount Road / Velclaire Gate151 m
- transit stop: Birchmount Road / Velclaire Gate155 m
- parking lot171 m
- parking lot175 m
- transit stop: ENTERPRISE BLVD / ROUGE VALLEY DR W185 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality10th
- Edge activation60th
- Connectivity10th
- Amenity diversity50th
- Natural comfort61th
- Enclosure21th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Bishopstoke ParkCorridor / Linear Park22
- Bridgeview Cordone ParkOther25
- Promenade ParkOther23
- Railway ParketteOther26
- Sunnywood ParkOther21
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park76
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- David Crombie ParkCorridor / Linear Park71
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
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 Roseberry Park 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.
- 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
- 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.