Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
ST. GASPAR CSS - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Humber Summit (21)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

ST. GASPAR CSS - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 30, rank ~32th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

ST. GASPAR CSS - Building Grounds scores 30.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 2.43 ha

Vitality Score
30/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence
30.2 / 100
Citywide
32nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
17th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
-7
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 30 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 · p57
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p66
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Natural Comfort25 · p6
-3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park60 · p35
+1.0
Connectivity52 · p59
+0.5

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

ST. GASPAR CSS - Building Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (0) is middle of the pack.

What limits this park

ST. GASPAR CSS - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (25, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

ST. GASPAR CSS - Building Grounds is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (52) significantly outpaces natural comfort (25) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (60) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -7; cohort: medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.4 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%
52.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 11 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~730 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)11
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.69
Park perimeter730 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%
24.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~647 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)647 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used169

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
60.0 / 100

87 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 87 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.9 m (~2 floors); 11.9 buildings per 100 m of 730 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 m87
Buildings within 50 m87
Avg edge height4.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building6.9 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)87
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density11.92 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter730 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (21)

  • transit stop — Millwick Drive at Plunkett Road106 m
  • transit stop — Mullwick Drive at Plunkett Road119 m
  • parking lot135 m
  • retail — Capri Bakery142 m
  • restaurant — Pho Ha Long Restaurant150 m
  • parking lot168 m
  • retail — Ryna's Nails169 m
  • cafe — Avellino Social Club174 m
  • retail — Magical Mash-Ups178 m
  • restaurant — Il Panino180 m
  • retail — Casablance Florist182 m
  • restaurant — Peppers Caribbean Restaurant185 m
  • retail — Islington Travel Agencies190 m
  • retail — Comfort & Benessere193 m
  • retail — Alex Hair Salon194 m
  • transit stop — Millwick Drive196 m
  • parking lot196 m
  • transit stop — Millwick Drive at Milvan Drive West Side197 m
  • retail — Lionheart Coin Laundry198 m
  • retail198 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureST. GASPAR CSS - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    32th
  • Edge activation
    57th
  • Connectivity
    59th
  • Amenity diversity
    66th
  • Natural comfort
    6th
  • Enclosure
    35th

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 ST. GASPAR CSS - 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.

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.
  • 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

  • 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.