Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Islington-City Centre West (14)confidence moderate

Cloverdale Park Tennis Courts

Athletic / Recreation Park, middle of the pack overall (score 31, rank ~35th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Cloverdale Park Tennis Courts scores 31 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 0.17 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports fieldTennis
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
31/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
31.0 / 100
Citywide
35th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
24th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in Athletic / Recreation Park (n=155)
Performance gap
-6
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 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 · p57
-12.5
Amenity Diversity28 · p84
-4.3
Natural Comfort22 · p1
-4.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park76 · p79
+2.6
Connectivity46 · p51
-0.8
Border Vacuum Risk48 (risk)
+0.2

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

Cloverdale Park Tennis Courts works because its amenity diversity score (28) is above average and its enclosure (76) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Cloverdale Park Tennis Courts is held back by natural comfort (22, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (48).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (22, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Cloverdale Park Tennis Courts 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 (76) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -6; cohort: Athletic / Recreation Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Urban Plaza

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 67% of amenity types are athletic (sports_field, tennis). Secondary read: Urban Plaza (1723 m², paved (0% canopy), 11.4 buildings/100 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (restaurant, retail) and 7 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%
45.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 8 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~167 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)8
Sidewalk segments (50 m)2
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.60
Park perimeter167 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, 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 24%
22.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1415 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)1,415 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used24

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
75.9 / 100

19 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 15 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.6 m (~2 floors); 11.4 buildings per 100 m of 167 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 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m19
Buildings within 50 m19
Avg edge height6.6 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building13.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)4
Low-rise (< 3 floors)15
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density11.38 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge21%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter167 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
48.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Toronto Parks, Forestry & Recreation parking, 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

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 (3 types · 8 records)

  • bench
  • sports field
  • tennis

Nearby active-edge features (43)

  • parking lot36 m
  • parking lot: Toronto Parks, Forestry & Recreation parking40 m
  • parking lot50 m
  • parking lot50 m
  • parking lot75 m
  • restaurant: Mekong River80 m
  • parking lot82 m
  • retail: Wild Birds Unlimited92 m
  • parking lot94 m
  • highway: Dundas Street West110 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street at Shaver Avenue121 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street At Shaver Avenue124 m
  • parking lot126 m
  • parking lot131 m
  • highway: Dundas Street West133 m
  • retail: Circle K136 m
  • retail: Vape 100137 m
  • retail: WJT Massage138 m
  • restaurant: Lonzo’s138 m
  • highway: Dundas Street West140 m
  • restaurant: Pizzaville141 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons141 m
  • parking lot142 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • restaurant: Armenian Bistro150 m
  • restaurant: Swiss Chalet156 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • retail160 m
  • highway: Dundas Street West167 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street West171 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • highway: Dundas Street West173 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street at Shorncliffe Road178 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street At Shorncliffe Road184 m
  • cafe: Gong Cha194 m
  • retail: Emmetts Toy Stop & Hobby Shop196 m
  • transit stop198 m
  • restaurant: Shawarma Royale199 m
  • parking lot199 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street At Wilmar Road200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCloverdale Park Tennis Courts
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
    35th
  • Edge activation
    57th
  • Connectivity
    51th
  • Amenity diversity
    84th
  • Natural comfort
    1th
  • Enclosure
    79th

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 Cloverdale Park Tennis Courtsmatters. 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.
  • 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

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.