Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Niagara (82)confidence moderate

The Gore

Other, near the bottom of the city overall (score 25, rank ~11th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

The Gore scores 24.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 0.70 ha

Vitality Score
25/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
24.7 / 100
Citywide
11th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Other
29th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
27
median in small Other (n=104)
Performance gap
-2
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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 25 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 · p54
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p50
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity61 · p78
+2.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park52 · p24
+0.2
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

The Gore works because its connectivity score (61) is above average (18 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 9 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

The Gore is held back by enclosure (52, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (61, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

The Gore is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (0.7 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 0.8/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (transit_stop) and 11 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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%
61.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 23 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~355 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m9
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)23
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.54
Park perimeter355 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
48.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~13.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~283 m; 19 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (19.0/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)283 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon19
Tree density19.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used50

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%
52.3 / 100

3 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 1 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 10.1 m (~3 floors); 0.8 buildings per 100 m of 355 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m3
Buildings within 50 m3
Avg edge height10.1 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building12.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)1
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.85 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge67%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)72%
Park perimeter355 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West. 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (38)

  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue3 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West35 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West35 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West43 m
  • parking lot47 m
  • transit stop: Princes' Gates Loop48 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street50 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street52 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West55 m
  • parking lot: Lot 85955 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue58 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue58 m
  • parking lot60 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue82 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue82 m
  • transit stop: Canada Blvd at Princes' Blvd83 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West86 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West92 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West100 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Hub100 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West102 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Hub123 m
  • transit stop128 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West136 m
  • highway: Gardiner Expressway141 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West141 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street145 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • transit stop173 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West174 m
  • parking lot176 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West177 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West184 m
  • transit stop: Fort York Boulevard191 m
  • highway: Gardiner Expressway199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureThe Gore
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
    11th
  • Edge activation
    54th
  • Connectivity
    78th
  • Amenity diversity
    50th
  • Natural comfort
    54th
  • Enclosure
    24th

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 The Gorematters. 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.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

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.