Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Rockcliffe-Smythe (111)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

GEORGE SYME COMMUNITY SCHOOL - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~83th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

GEORGE SYME COMMUNITY SCHOOL - Building Grounds scores 42.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 1.86 ha

Vitality Score

42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence

42.2 / 100

Citywide

83rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

76th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

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 42 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 · p42

-10.0

Connectivity59 · p73

+1.9

Natural Comfort39 · p36

-1.6

Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)

+1.4

Enclosure / Eyes on Park63 · p51

+1.3

Edge Activation47 · p95

-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

GEORGE SYME COMMUNITY SCHOOL - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (47) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (59) is also above-average.

What limits this park

GEORGE SYME COMMUNITY SCHOOL - Building Grounds's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 36.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (47, top decile).

Jacobs reading

GEORGE SYME COMMUNITY SCHOOL - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.9 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

46.6 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 22 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 4 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%

59.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 17 street intersections within 100 m; 30 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~611 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m10

Intersections within 100 m17

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)12

Transit stops (400 m)30

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.64

Park perimeter611 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%

39.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~734 m; 14 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.5/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)734 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon14

Tree density7.5 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used129

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

63.2 / 100

170 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 170 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.1 m (~2 floors); 27.8 buildings per 100 m of 611 m perimeter — strong frontage density; 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 m170

Buildings within 50 m170

Avg edge height5.1 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building8.8 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)170

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density27.84 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter611 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (66)

parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot14 m
retail — Esso25 m
retail — Châu Lingeries31 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue W at Mariposa Ave46 m
transit stop — Pritchard Ave at Jane St48 m
restaurant — New Generation Pizza50 m
retail — Hotspot Auto Parts58 m
transit stop — Jane Street58 m
retail — Nicol’s Beauty Center60 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue W at Jane St64 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue West67 m
transit stop — Pritchard Ave at Jane St69 m
retail — S and A Variety Store69 m
transit stop — Pritchard Avenue70 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue W at Mariposa Ave72 m
transit stop77 m
retail — Pedi N Nails77 m
restaurant — Denny's82 m
parking lot83 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue West88 m
transit stop — Pritchard Avenue92 m
retail — Cindy Vu Hair Design95 m
retail — Manntel96 m
restaurant97 m
parking lot105 m
retail — Empire Collision Inc.107 m
parking lot108 m
retail — Redwood Sheds109 m
parking lot113 m
transit stop — Pritchard Ave at Batavia Ave116 m
parking lot117 m
restaurant — Wendy's125 m
restaurant — BarBurrito127 m
restaurant — D Spot Desserts130 m
rail133 m
restaurant — Pizza Hut134 m
retail — easyfinancial134 m
rail137 m
parking lot137 m
parking lot138 m
rail140 m
retail — Prestige Car Sales143 m
rail147 m
retail — Plato's Closet147 m
parking lot149 m
retail — Consumer Auto Parts Inc.150 m
rail151 m
rail154 m
retail — Ontario Auto Trim Ltd.157 m
parking lot157 m
rail157 m
restaurant — Osmow's158 m
cafe — Tim Hortons161 m
rail — Galt Subdivision161 m
rail — Galt Subdivision165 m
cafe — Starbucks165 m
retail — Diaper & Gift Outlet166 m
restaurant — Subway168 m
rail168 m
rail — Galt Subdivision169 m
retail — Towtal173 m
parking lot177 m
retail — Dulux Paints180 m
rail197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
83th
Edge activation
95th
Connectivity
73th
Amenity diversity
42th
Natural comfort
36th
Enclosure
51th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Tabor Hill Memorial ParkCivic Square44
North York Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park47
Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park44
Riverside CemeteryNeighbourhood Park40
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park46

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25

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 50%

Overall activity

7/ 100

6.6 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

8real

Temporal rhythm

13real

Pedestrian / cycling flow

8unknown

Cultural significance

15unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of GEORGE SYME COMMUNITY SCHOOL - Building Groundsmatters. 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.
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.