Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (ravine-leaning)York University Heights (27)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Other, near the bottom of the city overall (score 24, rank ~10th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 24.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (30). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:varies — see metrics

Area · 0.62 ha

Vitality Score

24/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 55%

Data Confidence

24.1 / 100

Citywide

10th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Other

41st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Other (n=41)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 24 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 Activation8 · p67

-10.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p14

-10.0

Natural Comfort23 · p1

-4.1

Enclosure / Eyes on Park28 · p3

-2.2

Border Vacuum Risk30 (risk)

+2.0

Connectivity44 · p43

-1.1

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 (8) is middle of the pack.

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (30).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (23, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

Although its citywide rank is low (10th), it ranks highly among similar others (41st) — 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 (0.6 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 0.5/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

8.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 4 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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%

44.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 20 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 22 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~366 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0

Intersections within 100 m2

Paths/walkways (50 m)3

Sidewalk segments (50 m)20

Transit stops (400 m)22

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00

Park perimeter366 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%

22.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1221 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)1,221 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used44

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%

28.3 / 100

2 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.9 m (~2 floors); 0.5 buildings per 100 m of 366 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; 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 m2

Buildings within 50 m2

Avg edge height4.9 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building5.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)2

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density0.55 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)82%

Park perimeter366 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

30.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Finch West Parking, rail. 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 (22)

transit stop0 m
parking lot — Finch West Parking25 m
rail33 m
retail — Lubricants Shop50 m
rail55 m
transit stop — Keele St at Ross Murray Pkwy56 m
parking lot69 m
transit stop — Keele St at Four Winds Drive97 m
parking lot102 m
parking lot106 m
transit stop — Four Winds Drive - Finch West Station131 m
rail136 m
parking lot138 m
retail140 m
transit stop — Four Winds Drive154 m
transit stop — Finch West Station156 m
parking lot174 m
retail — MUSE Massage Spa176 m
transit stop182 m
transit stop — Finch West Station184 m
restaurant — J's Bar & Restaurant187 m
restaurant — District 45 Lounge197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
10th
Edge activation
67th
Connectivity
43th
Amenity diversity
14th
Natural comfort
1th
Enclosure
3th

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.

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Sir Winston Churchill ParkRavine / Naturalized Park69
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza60

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 35%

Overall activity

13/ 100

13.4 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

8unknown

Temporal rhythm

13unknown

Pedestrian / cycling flow

42real

Cultural significance

15unknown

Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 38.2/100; cycling/trail 63.6/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.

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.

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.
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.