Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
City Wide Open Space, site photograph
Back to map
OtherType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)South Riverdale

City Wide Open Space

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 39, rank ~69th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

No photograph yet. If you have one of City Wide Open Space, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

City Wide Open Space scores 39.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: edge activation and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). 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 · 0.47 ha

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

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.

Vitality Score
39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
39.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
69th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Other
95th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
27
median in small Other (n=103)
Performance gap
+12
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong 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.

Explain this score

Where did the 39 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 Diversity0 · p33
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Natural Comfort36 · p25
-2.2
Connectivity42 · p44
-1.6
Edge Activation46 · p94
-1.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park42 · p9
-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

City Wide Open Space works because its edge activation score (46) is in the top tier.

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by enclosure (42, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (46, top decile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 39 versus an expected 27 for similar parks (small Other) (gap +12).
  • Although its citywide rank is low (69th), it ranks highly among similar others (95th): 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 (0.5 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 0.3/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
45.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (transit_stop) 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

20% weightmeasured 85%
41.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 6 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~366 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)9
Transit stops (400 m)6 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 6 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.82
Park perimeter366 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
35.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~16 m; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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)16 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon1
Tree density1.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used33

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%
42.4 / 100

1 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 0 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 11.4 m (~4 floors); 0.3 buildings per 100 m of 366 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 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m1
Buildings within 50 m1
Avg edge height11.4 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building11.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)0
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.27 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge100%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)91%
Park perimeter366 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

Source: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (5)

  • transit stop: Carlaw Avenue7 m
  • transit stop: Carlaw Avenue21 m
  • transit stop: Carlaw Avenue40 m
  • transit stop: Commissioners Street44 m
  • transit stop: Commissioners Street46 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space
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
    69th
  • Edge activation
    94th
  • Connectivity
    44th
  • Amenity diversity
    33th
  • Natural comfort
    25th
  • Enclosure
    9th

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 City Wide Open Space 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.
  • Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.

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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.