Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Public Access Property, site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear ParkType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Malvern West

Public Access Property

Corridor / Linear Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~54th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Public Access Property scores 35.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity 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.

Best forwalking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 0.27 ha

Getting around

Paths

281 m of mapped path, 100% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 55 m away. 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.

Vitality Score
35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence
35.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
54th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
61st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
33
median in small Corridor / Linear Park (n=82)
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 35 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 · p41
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p38
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity74 · p95
+4.7
Natural Comfort25 · p9
-3.7
Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p66
+1.7

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

Public Access Property works because its connectivity score (74) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (67) is also above-average (21 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 21 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Public Access Property is held back by natural comfort (25, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (74, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Public Access Property sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (74) significantly outpaces natural comfort (25): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (67) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 3.4× a circle of equal area

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%
73.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 6 mapped paths/walkways and 29 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 21 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~619 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m21
Paths/walkways (50 m)6
Sidewalk segments (50 m)29
Transit stops (400 m)21
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.45
Park perimeter619 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
25.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~423 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)423 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used20

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
67.3 / 100

32 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 25 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.4 m (~2 floors); 5.2 buildings per 100 m of 619 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 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m32
Buildings within 50 m32
Avg edge height6.4 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building10.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)25
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.17 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge22%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter619 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (30)

  • parking lot55 m
  • parking lot64 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • transit stop: Washburn Way113 m
  • transit stop: Blackwell Avenue122 m
  • transit stop: Blackwell Avenue132 m
  • transit stop: Washburn Way at Tapscott Rd135 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • retail: The Tech Store148 m
  • retail: Arayana Jewelery148 m
  • cafe: CoCo Fresh Tea & Juice149 m
  • transit stop: Tapscott Rd at Washburn Way156 m
  • restaurant: Day’s Kitchen158 m
  • restaurant: DelecTable165 m
  • transit stop: Washburn Way at Nahanni Terrace171 m
  • retail: Imperial Tailoring173 m
  • restaurant: 999 Sushi175 m
  • retail: Alfa Mobile179 m
  • retail: Fashion Watches Plus179 m
  • transit stop: Nahanni Terrace184 m
  • retail: Luxe Jewellery185 m
  • restaurant: Express Munchies187 m
  • retail188 m
  • retail: Steela Shoes190 m
  • retail: Kin Kin Bakery192 m
  • retail: Jackie’s Creative Cakes194 m
  • restaurant: Hakka Pavilion196 m
  • cafe: Real Fruit Bubble Tea197 m
  • retail: Source Clothing197 m
  • retail199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosurePublic Access Property
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
    54th
  • Edge activation
    41th
  • Connectivity
    95th
  • Amenity diversity
    38th
  • Natural comfort
    9th
  • Enclosure
    66th

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 Public Access Property 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.

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.
  • 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.