Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Silverhill Park, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Islington-City Centre West (14)confidence moderate

Silverhill Park

Neighbourhood Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~75th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Tung Nguyen via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Silverhill Park scores 40.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 1.61 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
40.8 / 100
Citywide
75th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
59th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=393)
Performance gap
+1
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Silverhill Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view.City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 41 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 · p21
-12.5
Amenity Diversity21 · p69
-5.8
Connectivity71 · p93
+4.3
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p50
+1.2
Natural Comfort49 · p54
-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

Silverhill Park works because its connectivity score (71) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (21) is also above-average (14 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk).

What limits this park

Silverhill Park is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (71, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Silverhill Park 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 (62) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.6 ha, framed by 1 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) 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

20% weightmeasured 85%
71.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 14 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 10 estimated access points across ~573 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m8
Paths/walkways (50 m)14
Sidewalk segments (50 m)19
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances10
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.57
Park perimeter573 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench). 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% weightpartial 45%
48.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~17.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1281 m; 41 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (25.5/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. 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)1,281 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon41
Tree density25.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used113

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
62.3 / 100

115 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 114 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.1 m (~1 floors); 20.1 buildings per 100 m of 573 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m115
Buildings within 50 m115
Avg edge height4.1 m (~1 floors)
Tallest edge building9.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)114
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density20.07 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge1%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter573 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (2 types · 12 records)

  • playground
  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (11)

  • parking lot23 m
  • retail: The UPS Store121 m
  • restaurant: Scruffy Murphy's Irish Pub123 m
  • restaurant: Sarajevo Meat and Grill129 m
  • cafe: Yellow Cup Cafe132 m
  • restaurant: Zula Wood Fired Pizza & Gourmet Burger132 m
  • retail: First Choice Haircutters133 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • retail: Connect Hearing149 m
  • retail: Silver Cross152 m
  • parking lot152 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSilverhill 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
    75th
  • Edge activation
    21th
  • Connectivity
    93th
  • Amenity diversity
    69th
  • Natural comfort
    54th
  • Enclosure
    50th

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.

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.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score38 / 100
38.0 / 100

p37 citywide · p36 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)12
Density / ha29
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
65
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.95 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 Silverhill Parkmatters. 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.