Silverstone Park
Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~61th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.
No photograph yet. If you have one of Silverstone Park, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoAerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Data updated
Silverstone Park scores 37.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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.
Area · 0.79 ha
What's here
Getting around
107 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.
No steps mapped on the path network.
Not enough mapped seating to assess (2 benches mapped).
No parking mapped in or within 200 m of this park.
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.Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 37 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
Silverstone Park works because its amenity diversity score (21) is middle of the pack and its connectivity (54) is also above-average.
What limits this park
Silverstone 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 low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).
Jacobs reading
Silverstone 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 (61) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
Typology classification
Classified as Parkette: small (7884 m²) with strong building frontage (19.6 per 100 m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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 3 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 1 bus stop within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~373 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
2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench). Diversity 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. All data sources.
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~131 m; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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
73 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 73 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.3 m (~1 floors); 19.6 buildings per 100 m of 373 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 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 (2 types · 4 records)
- playground
- bench
Nearby active-edge features (0)
No nearby features within 200 m of this park edge.
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality61th
- Edge activation10th
- Connectivity66th
- Amenity diversity68th
- Natural comfort38th
- Enclosure44th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Former Baycrest Public School groundsNeighbourhood Park36
- Beverly Glen ParkNeighbourhood Park37
- Lord Seaton ParkParkette35
- Manhattan ParkNeighbourhood Park37
- Frost ParkParkette37
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park76
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza68
- Shaw ParkParkette70
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 Silverstone 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.
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
- 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.