Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
ParketteType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)South Parkdale

HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 33, rank ~45th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 33.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.66 ha

What's here

Facilities
Community centre

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. 2 of 14 nearby lots reporting 1 accessible space.

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
33/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
33.4 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
45th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Parkette
47th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=222)
Performance gap
-4
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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.

Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.

Near the park

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 33 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 · p62
-12.5
Amenity Diversity13 · p65
-7.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park93 · p98
+4.3
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Natural Comfort36 · p26
-2.1
Connectivity42 · p45
-1.6

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

HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (93) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (13) is also above-average (30 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (93, top decile).

Jacobs reading

HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds 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 (93) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (6631 m²) with strong building frontage (17.7 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

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

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
42.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 9 streetcar or LRT stops, 4 bus 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 m1
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)6
Transit stops (400 m)13 (0 subway/GO, 9 streetcar/LRT, 4 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.27
Park perimeter366 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
13.3 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork near the park adds a bonus for the number of works.

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

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
35.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.1% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~637 m; 3 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.0/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)637 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon3
Tree density3.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used47

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
93.2 / 100

65 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (30 mid-rise, 35 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 10.0 m (~3 floors); 17.7 buildings per 100 m of 366 m perimeter (strong frontage density); 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 30 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m65
Buildings within 50 m65
Avg edge height10.0 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building22.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)30
Low-rise (< 3 floors)35
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density17.74 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge46%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter366 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • community centre

Nearby active-edge features (36)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • transit stop: Dunn Avenue67 m
  • transit stop: Dunn Avenue86 m
  • parking lot89 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • transit stop: Jameson Avenue120 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • retail: Central Market142 m
  • transit stop: Jameson Avenue146 m
  • retail: Super Variety157 m
  • retail: Yioi Beauty Spa160 m
  • parking lot160 m
  • restaurant: Loga's Corner160 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • parking lot168 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • parking lot173 m
  • retail: Klute Hair176 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • retail: Dollarama181 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • retail: Lumicrest Professional LED Lighting184 m
  • restaurant: Simpl Things184 m
  • restaurant: The Silver Dollar Room185 m
  • parking lot185 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • cafe: Capital Espresso189 m
  • retail: Parkdale Jewellery Exchange189 m
  • restaurant: Domino's196 m
  • restaurant: Subway196 m
  • restaurant: Pharmacy Bar196 m
  • transit stop: Dunn Avenue197 m
  • restaurant: Daol Korean Restaurant198 m
  • retail: Mr. Fades199 m
  • retail: Vape Shop Near Me200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds
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
    45th
  • Edge activation
    62th
  • Connectivity
    45th
  • Amenity diversity
    65th
  • Natural comfort
    26th
  • Enclosure
    98th

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 HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds 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.

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.