Athletic / Recreation ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)West Humber-Clairville

Sunnydale Acres Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~74th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Samiya A via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Sunnydale Acres Park scores 40.6 / 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 fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 4.71 ha

What's here

Recreation

PlaygroundSports fieldTennisIce rink

Facilities

Washroom

Getting around

Paths

424 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. None of the 2 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

41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

40.6 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide

74th

of all 3,788 parks

Among Athletic / Recreation Park

66th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park (n=113)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Loading map…

Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Sunnydale Acres 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 · p22

-12.5

Connectivity68 · p89

+3.6

Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)

+2.6

Amenity Diversity40 · p92

-2.0

Natural Comfort38 · p31

-1.9

Enclosure / Eyes on Park58 · p32

+0.8

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

Sunnydale Acres Park works because its amenity diversity score (40) is in the top tier and its connectivity (68) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Sunnydale Acres 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 amenity diversity (40, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

Connectivity (68) significantly outpaces natural comfort (38): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 60% of amenity types are athletic (sports_field, tennis, ice_rink). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (4.7 ha, framed by 0 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 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%

68.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 9 mapped paths/walkways and 24 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 12 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~1,117 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m12

Intersections within 100 m12

Paths/walkways (50 m)9

Sidewalk segments (50 m)24

Transit stops (400 m)10

Estimated entrances7

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.07

Park perimeter1,117 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

39.8 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field, tennis, washroom, ice_rink). 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% weightmeasured 75%

37.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 1.3% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~317 m; 13 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.8/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage1.3%

Canopy area0.06 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)317 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon13

Tree density2.8 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)10.1

Sample points used228

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

58.1 / 100

145 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 145 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 3.8 m (~1 floors); 13.0 buildings per 100 m of 1,117 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.

Buildings within 25 m145

Buildings within 50 m145

Avg edge height3.8 m (~1 floors)

Tallest edge building5.7 m

Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)145

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density12.98 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,117 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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 (5 types · 8 records)

playground
sports field
tennis
washroom
ice rink

Nearby active-edge features (2)

parking lot0 m
parking lot37 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

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
74th
Edge activation
22th
Connectivity
89th
Amenity diversity
92th
Natural comfort
31th
Enclosure
32th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Stephen Leacock ParkNeighbourhood Park39
Fundy Bay ParkNeighbourhood Park41
North York Civic Soccer FieldsCivic Square40
Shawnee ParkNeighbourhood Park43
Gihon Spring ParkAthletic / Recreation Park44

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza62

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 score42 / 100

41.6 / 100

p47 citywide · p48 within Athletic / Recreation Park

Volume (saturated)23

Density / ha24

Rating contribution85

Match dampener×1.00

Average rating

★ 4.4

out of 5

Ratings collected

145

total reviews

Photos uploaded

total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.96 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

Human activity signals

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores. Partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 50%

Overall activity9 / 100

8.9 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

14real

Temporal rhythm

13real

Pedestrian / cycling flow

8unknown

Cultural significance

28unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Sunnydale Acres 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

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.