PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds
Civic Square, one of the city's strongest overall (score 58, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.
Photo by Willie B. Hardigan via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Data updated
PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 57.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (40.1). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.60 ha
What's here
Getting around
227 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.
2 flights of steps on the mapped network.
No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.
Nearest parking 58 m away. 1 of 6 nearby lots reporting accessible spaces without a count.
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 68%
Data confidence: moderate
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.
Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.
Near the park
1Faces of Regent Park
Dan Bergeron, 2015
Sculpture · glass, steel, concrete
This permanent public artwork was commissioned by the City of Toronto. The twelve photo-based, mixed-media portraits depict residents from the newly revitalized neighbourhood, which has been transformed from a strictly social housing only neighbourhood, to a mixed use development with an even split of social housing and market rate units. The six double-sided laminated glass panels are each nine feet high by six feet wide and two-and-a-half inches thick and weigh 2000 pounds. Aesthetically the work combines the familiarity of the human face with the distressed surfaces of aged architecture and infrastructure found in the urban environment. The graffiti tags have been meticulously rendered from actual markings found in the neighbourhood and act as representational signifiers of human presence on our streets, while the patterned effects symbolize the energy of human movement that give our cities their kinetic life. The vibrant and contrasting colours found within the backgrounds create a juxtaposition that helps to frame the black and white portraits, while simultaneously presenting the notion that we all stem from the same colourful tree. The twelve subjects were not easy to pick. As a cross section, they represent everyone who has, does or will live in Regent Park. Their faces are the welcome home to residents, the hello to local and international visitors to the neighbourhood, and the ever-present gatekeepers who will keep watch over Regent Park and remind us that it is through our differences that we gain strength and through our personal relationships that we create community.
Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art
Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.
Explain this score
Where did the 58 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
PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (44) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (40) is also top decile.
What limits this park
PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (44, top decile).
Jacobs reading
PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Performance in context
- This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 58 versus an expected 44 for similar parks (small Civic Square) (gap +14).
Typology classification
Classified as Civic Square: tower-walled, low canopy (0%), tight frontage: reads as a civic square
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (cafe, restaurant, community, retail, transit_stop) and 3 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 11 mapped paths/walkways and 18 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 7 streetcar or LRT stops, 1 bus stop within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~352 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.
Amenity Diversity
5 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, garden, playground, pool, washroom). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork near the park adds a bonus for the number of works.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~27.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~439 m; 39 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (39.0/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
39 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 10 low-rise, 19 tower); avg edge height 45.3 m (~15 floors); 11.1 buildings per 100 m of 352 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 19 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 10 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.
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 (5 types · 5 records)
- community centre
- garden
- playground
- pool
- washroom
Nearby active-edge features (31)
- transit stop: Sumach Street8 m
- transit stop: Sumach Street11 m
- retail: Purple Factory27 m
- retail: Rogers34 m
- restaurant: Wendy's35 m
- restaurant: Popeyes50 m
- retail: Wine Rack57 m
- parking lot58 m
- restaurant: Liberty Pizza68 m
- parking lot68 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons75 m
- restaurant: Subway80 m
- community: Daniels Spectrum83 m
- retail: Circle K90 m
- parking lot91 m
- cafe: Le Beau94 m
- parking lot139 m
- transit stop: Sackville Street141 m
- restaurant: Cafe Zuzu141 m
- transit stop: Sumach Street151 m
- transit stop: Sumach Street155 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons164 m
- parking lot169 m
- transit stop: Sackville Street172 m
- retail: Rabba179 m
- restaurant: Freddy's Greek180 m
- restaurant: Tahini's184 m
- retail: Pro League189 m
- retail: Busy Bee Spa190 m
- transit stop: River Street193 m
- parking lot195 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality98th
- Edge activation94th
- Connectivity91th
- Amenity diversity92th
- Natural comfort73th
- Enclosure47th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- North Kipling ParkRavine / Naturalized Park54
- Edwards GardensRavine / Naturalized Park56
- Skymark ParkOther57
- Bridlewood ParkAthletic / Recreation Park54
- Irving Paisley ParkAthletic / Recreation Park54
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Trca Lands ( 58)Ravine / Naturalized Park18
Visitor signals
Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.
“Striking modern facility in Regent Park with 3 indoor swimming pools, open freely to the public.” (Google editorial summary)
p96 citywide · p90 within Civic Square
Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
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 PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds 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.
- 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.