Public Access Property
Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 42, rank ~79th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: amenity diversity.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Public Access Property scores 42 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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 · 0.08 ha
Getting around
60 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.
Too little path mapped to check for steps.
No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.
Nearest parking 92 m away. None of the 1 nearby lot 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 50%
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.Explain this score
Where did the 42 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
Public Access Property works because its enclosure score (90) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (46) is also top decile (37 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).
What limits this park
Public Access Property is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (90, 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
- Natural comfort (50) significantly outpaces connectivity (20): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 775 m², paved (0% canopy), 29.4 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (retail, restaurant) and 1 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 32 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~173 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
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: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
51 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (37 mid-rise, 9 low-rise, 5 tower); avg edge height 22.4 m (~7 floors); 29.4 buildings per 100 m of 173 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 5 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 37 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.
Source: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints
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: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles
Amenities (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (78)
- restaurant: Slider Byte41 m
- restaurant: Kinka Izakaya77 m
- restaurant: Katsuya78 m
- retail: Alicos84 m
- restaurant: Pizza maru90 m
- retail: Church Street Barber Shop91 m
- retail: Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel91 m
- parking lot: Impark92 m
- retail112 m
- restaurant: A&W117 m
- restaurant: The Lexington118 m
- retail: Fleets Food131 m
- retail: 420 Sunshine132 m
- restaurant: Crying Tiger134 m
- retail: INS Vape134 m
- restaurant: B Boyz134 m
- restaurant135 m
- restaurant: Pita Way135 m
- retail: INS Market135 m
- retail135 m
- restaurant: Gurume Sushi135 m
- restaurant: Beleaf136 m
- restaurant: Subway136 m
- restaurant: Assembli Custom-Made Salads & Pizzas137 m
- rail: Line 1 Yonge-University137 m
- restaurant: Mick E. Fynns137 m
- restaurant: Som Tum Jinda138 m
- rail: Line 1 Yonge-University141 m
- restaurant: Alexandros141 m
- restaurant: Kiyomio142 m
- retail: Super Vage143 m
- cafe: Plearn Cafe146 m
- restaurant: Le Lert147 m
- retail: Printland Digital Printing Solutions147 m
- retail: Hitotoki Japanese Bakery148 m
- cafe: Bulldog Coffee150 m
- cafe: Goldstruck Coffee152 m
- retail: Perfrect Threading & Beauty Salon154 m
- restaurant: Wingstop156 m
- restaurant: Guac Mexi Grill162 m
- restaurant: Pi Co162 m
- restaurant: Thirty Bar and Lounge166 m
- restaurant: Lucky Donkatsu167 m
- retail: Nails on Yonge168 m
- restaurant: BarBurrito168 m
- retail: Sweet & Natural168 m
- restaurant: Baroness Bubble Tea169 m
- retail: La Fuzion Hair Salon170 m
- retail: Signature Beauty Lounge171 m
- retail: Fusettes171 m
- retail: Caesar Spa171 m
- transit stop: Church Street171 m
- cafe: 18 Feet171 m
- retail: Global Gifts172 m
- retail173 m
- transit stop: Gerrard Street175 m
- restaurant: Sanuki Udon176 m
- transit stop176 m
- restaurant: Indian Studio Kitchen177 m
- restaurant: Amato Gyro177 m
- restaurant: Ajisen Ramens182 m
- restaurant: Bocconcini Pizza and Wings183 m
- cafe: Starbucks184 m
- restaurant: The Original Hot Chicken184 m
- highway: Yonge Street186 m
- highway: Yonge Street186 m
- rail187 m
- rail187 m
- retail: Loblaws193 m
- transit stop: Church Street195 m
- restaurant: J-Mart195 m
- transit stop: Gerrard Street196 m
- retail: 401 Games197 m
- transit stop197 m
- retail198 m
- retail: Maple Leaf Medical Pharmacy198 m
- retail: Super Eater199 m
- restaurant: Ikkousha Ramen200 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality79th
- Edge activation95th
- Connectivity16th
- Amenity diversity15th
- Natural comfort56th
- Enclosure96th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Hillsdale Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza45
- Back Campus FieldsNeighbourhood Park42
- Glen Davis RavineRavine / Naturalized Park42
- Pitman QuadUrban Plaza45
- Islington Pioneer CemeteryUrban Plaza34
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Sir Casimir Gzowski ParkWaterfront Park34
- Budapest ParkWaterfront Park35
- Lakeshore Boulevard ParklandsCorridor / Linear Park34
- High ParkWaterfront Park51
- Christie Pits ParkRavine / Naturalized Park48
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.
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: Parks (Green Space)Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.