Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
City Wide Open Space — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Malvern (132)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Neighbourhood Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 20, rank ~3th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 20.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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 for:daily urban life

Area · 1.44 ha

Vitality Score
20/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence
20.4 / 100
Citywide
3rd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
1st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
-17
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 20 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 · p47
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p52
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Natural Comfort25 · p5
-3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park82 · p87
+3.2
Connectivity42 · p39
-1.5

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 enclosure score (82) is in the top tier (17 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by natural comfort (25, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (25, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space 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 (82) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort — raw 20 vs an expected 37 (gap -17).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.4 ha, framed by 17 mid-rise vs 2 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, cafe) and 17 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
42.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 5 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~562 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)5
Transit stops (400 m)20
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.89
Park perimeter562 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% weightinferred 30%
24.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~653 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)653 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used100

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
82.3 / 100

28 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (17 mid-rise, 9 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 14.6 m (~5 floors); 5.0 buildings per 100 m of 562 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 17 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m28
Buildings within 50 m28
Avg edge height14.6 m (~5 floors)
Tallest edge building50.0 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)17
Low-rise (< 3 floors)9
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density4.99 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge61%
Tower share of edge7%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter562 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: Markham Road, parking_lot, Markham Road, Markham Road, Markham Road, parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they 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 (65)

  • highway — Markham Road21 m
  • highway — Markham Road23 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons25 m
  • highway — Markham Road32 m
  • parking lot33 m
  • parking lot34 m
  • retail — Circle K36 m
  • transit stop — Markham Road at Sheppard Avenue East47 m
  • highway — Markham Road50 m
  • highway — Markham Road53 m
  • parking lot54 m
  • highway — Markham Road55 m
  • transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Markham Road64 m
  • parking lot66 m
  • parking lot68 m
  • restaurant — Markham Station71 m
  • highway — Markham Road77 m
  • transit stop — Progress Avenue81 m
  • highway — Markham Road81 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • highway — Markham Road86 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • retail — Sun Nails Threading & Waxing94 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • highway — Markham Road101 m
  • transit stop — Progress Ave at Sheppard Ave E101 m
  • transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Markham Road102 m
  • restaurant — KFC102 m
  • parking lot107 m
  • parking lot107 m
  • restaurant — Sunrise111 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • transit stop — Progress Ave at Sheppard Ave E117 m
  • highway — Markham Road119 m
  • retail — Markham Corner Gift & Smoke120 m
  • transit stop — Markham Road at Sheppard Avenue East123 m
  • highway — Markham Road124 m
  • highway — Markham Road126 m
  • restaurant — Ai Sushi127 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • highway — Markham Road132 m
  • transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Markham Road West Side132 m
  • transit stop — Progress Avenue134 m
  • restaurant — Fat Bastard Burrito134 m
  • retail — Dollarama136 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • restaurant — Subway141 m
  • community — Toronto Public Library - Burrows Hall141 m
  • retail145 m
  • highway — Markham Road154 m
  • retail — Hakim Optical155 m
  • highway — Markham Road162 m
  • transit stop — Progress Ave at Rosebank Dr166 m
  • retail — Cloré Beauty Supply168 m
  • retail — Super Stop Convenience168 m
  • community — Richard Charles Lee Resource Centre182 m
  • highway — Markham Road183 m
  • transit stop — Progress Ave at Rosebank Dr183 m
  • highway — Markham Road184 m
  • parking lot188 m
  • highway — Markham Road193 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • highway — Markham Road197 m
  • retail — Food Basics198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    3th
  • Edge activation
    47th
  • Connectivity
    39th
  • Amenity diversity
    52th
  • Natural comfort
    5th
  • Enclosure
    87th

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 Spacematters. 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

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.
  • 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

  • City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
  • 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.