Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
City Wide Open Space, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood ParkType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Dorset Park

City Wide Open Space

Neighbourhood Park, below average overall (score 28, rank ~22th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: amenity diversity.

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 28 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 2.64 ha

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 7 m away. None of the 15 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
28/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
28.0 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
22nd
of all 3,753 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
6th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
40
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=357)
Performance gap
-12
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong underperformer

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 28 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 · p34
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p21
-10.0
Natural Comfort38 · p31
-1.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p67
+1.7
Connectivity52 · p63
+0.4
Border Vacuum Risk48 (risk)
+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

City Wide Open Space works because its enclosure score (67) is middle of the pack and its connectivity (52) is also above-average (9 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (48).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low amenity diversity (0, 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.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (67) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort: raw 28 vs an expected 40 (gap -12).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Parkalso reads as Waterfront Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.6 ha, framed by 9 mid-rise vs 0 towers. Secondary read: Waterfront Park (nearest waterbody within ~39 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 6 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
51.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 14 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 7 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,025 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)14
Transit stops (400 m)7 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 7 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.49
Park perimeter1,025 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%
37.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 21.5% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~39 m. Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system21.5%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)39 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)75.1
Sample points used93

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
67.2 / 100

106 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 97 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.1 m (~2 floors); 10.3 buildings per 100 m of 1,025 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m106
Buildings within 50 m106
Avg edge height5.1 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building18.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)9
Low-rise (< 3 floors)97
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density10.35 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge9%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,025 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
48.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, 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: 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 (22)

  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Canadian Road1 m
  • parking lot7 m
  • parking lot8 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Canadian Road25 m
  • parking lot27 m
  • parking lot31 m
  • parking lot66 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • restaurant: MexiTaco Cantina124 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Vauxhall Drive180 m
  • restaurant: Subway181 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Ellesmere Road183 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • restaurant: Kornerstone186 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • parking lot194 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
    22th
  • Edge activation
    34th
  • Connectivity
    63th
  • Amenity diversity
    21th
  • Natural comfort
    31th
  • Enclosure
    67th

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.
  • 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: 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.