Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Serena Gundy Park, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Leaside-Bennington

Serena Gundy Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 34, rank ~45th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Serena Gundy Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Serena Gundy Park scores 33.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 15.45 ha

What's here

Facilities
WashroomPicnic areaBenches

Getting around

Paths

3.7 km of mapped path, 40% paved.

1 flight of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (4 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 63 m away. 2 of 4 nearby lots reporting 3 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
34/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
33.5 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
45th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
47th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=117)
Performance gap
-3
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 34 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 · p16
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Amenity Diversity28 · p80
-4.3
Connectivity64 · p82
+2.8
Natural Comfort59 · p76
+1.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p50
+1.2

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

Serena Gundy Park works because its connectivity score (64) is above average and its amenity diversity (28) is also top quartile (12 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Serena Gundy Park is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Serena Gundy Park 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 (62) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 99% ravine overlap, 10% canopy. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 2.4× a circle of equal area).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 11 dead/hostile uses (highway, rail, 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%
63.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 28 mapped paths/walkways and 49 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 12 street intersections within 100 m; 2 streetcar or LRT stops, 7 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~3,401 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m12
Paths/walkways (50 m)28
Sidewalk segments (50 m)49
Transit stops (400 m)9 (0 subway/GO, 2 streetcar/LRT, 7 bus)
Estimated entrances6
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.18
Park perimeter3,401 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (picnic, washroom, bench). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

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

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
59.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 9.6% estimated tree canopy; 99.4% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~130 m; 35 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.3/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage9.6%
Canopy area1.48 ha
Inside ravine system99.4%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)130 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon35
Tree density2.3 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)43.0
Sample points used177

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
62.0 / 100

186 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (8 mid-rise, 178 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.5 m (~2 floors); 5.5 buildings per 100 m of 3,401 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 8 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m186
Buildings within 50 m186
Avg edge height6.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building11.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)8
Low-rise (< 3 floors)178
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.47 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge4%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter3,401 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Eglinton Avenue East, Eglinton Avenue East, Line 5 Eglinton, Line 5 Eglinton, Eglinton Avenue East. 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 (3 types · 13 records)

  • picnic
  • washroom
  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (22)

  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East37 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton37 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton42 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East48 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East49 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East52 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton53 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton56 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East61 m
  • parking lot: Parking Lot #363 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East73 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East102 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East103 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East115 m
  • parking lot: Parking Lot #4119 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East135 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East149 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East171 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East191 m
  • transit stop: Leslie Street199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSerena Gundy Park
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
    16th
  • Connectivity
    82th
  • Amenity diversity
    80th
  • Natural comfort
    76th
  • Enclosure
    50th

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 Serena Gundy Park 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.
  • 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.