Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
OtherType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Thorncliffe Park

Radar Park

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Radar Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

Radar Park scores 36.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (10.7). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 0.17 ha

What's here

Recreation
Fitness

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 78 m away. 2 of 19 nearby lots reporting 2 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
36/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
36.2 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
56th
of all 3,752 parks
Among Other
88th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
25
median in pocket Other (n=53)
Performance gap
+12
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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 36 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
Amenity Diversity11 · p52
-7.9
Edge Activation30 · p86
-5.0
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Natural Comfort25 · p7
-3.8
Connectivity31 · p29
-3.7
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p65
+1.6

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

Radar Park works because its edge activation score (30) is in the top tier and its enclosure (66) is also above-average.

What limits this park

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

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (25, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

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

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its other typology (+12 vs the median in pocket Other).
  • Although its citywide rank is low (56th), it ranks highly among similar others (88th): strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (0.2 ha, 1 amenity types, frontage 2.4/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
29.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (retail, transit_stop, cafe) 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
31.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 11 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~165 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)2
Transit stops (400 m)11
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.61
Park perimeter165 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
10.7 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (fitness). 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%
24.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~620 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)620 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used17

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%
66.2 / 100

4 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 1 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.3 m (~3 floors); 2.4 buildings per 100 m of 165 m perimeter (moderate frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m4
Buildings within 50 m4
Avg edge height8.3 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building10.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)1
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density2.43 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge75%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)19%
Park perimeter165 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • fitness

Nearby active-edge features (44)

  • retail: Robert Lowrey's Piano Experts66 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • cafe: Charmaine Sweets80 m
  • retail: Extoggery89 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • retail: Remenyi House of Music91 m
  • transit stop: Brentcliffe Road93 m
  • parking lot96 m
  • retail: Marshalls96 m
  • retail: Northline99 m
  • retail: NorthLine Sports100 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • transit stop104 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East106 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East107 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton110 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East113 m
  • parking lot114 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton117 m
  • transit stop: Brentcliffe Road121 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East127 m
  • parking lot129 m
  • retail: Staples130 m
  • parking lot136 m
  • retail: Canada Archery Online139 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton141 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • retail: Upper Canada Specialty Hardware145 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • retail: 2001 Audio Video146 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East157 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • retail: HomeSense166 m
  • parking lot173 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East180 m
  • retail: Canadian Tire Showroom188 m
  • parking lot192 m
  • parking lot192 m
  • parking lot199 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureRadar Park
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
    56th
  • Edge activation
    86th
  • Connectivity
    29th
  • Amenity diversity
    52th
  • Natural comfort
    7th
  • Enclosure
    65th

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 Radar 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.

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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.