Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Yonge-Eglinton (100)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Fiona Nelson Parkette

Urban Plaza, below average overall (score 29, rank ~26th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Fiona Nelson Parkette scores 29 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (84). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.09 ha

Vitality Score

29/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence

29.0 / 100

Citywide

26th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

9th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

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 29 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 · p51

-10.0

Edge Activation12 · p71

-9.4

Border Vacuum Risk84 (risk)

-3.4

Enclosure / Eyes on Park81 · p86

+3.1

Natural Comfort39 · p34

-1.7

Connectivity52 · p58

+0.4

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

Fiona Nelson Parkette works because its enclosure score (81) is in the top tier and its edge activation (12) is also above-average (6 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Fiona Nelson Parkette is held back by natural comfort (39, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (84).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (81, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Fiona Nelson Parkette 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 (81) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 12) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -7; cohort: pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 890 m², paved (0% canopy), 29.3 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

12.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (cafe, retail, transit_stop, restaurant) and 7 dead/hostile uses (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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%

51.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 23 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~198 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m4

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)12

Transit stops (400 m)23

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.02

Park perimeter198 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 36%

38.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1076 m; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.0/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)1,076 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon8

Tree density8.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used9

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

81.3 / 100

58 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 52 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.1 m (~2 floors); 29.3 buildings per 100 m of 198 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m58

Buildings within 50 m58

Avg edge height7.1 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building22.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)6

Low-rise (< 3 floors)52

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density29.32 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge10%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter198 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

84.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: rail, parking_lot, rail, rail, rail. 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 (80)

rail10 m
rail10 m
rail10 m
rail13 m
parking lot48 m
transit stop — Duplex Avenue66 m
parking lot78 m
transit stop — Duplex Avenue84 m
transit stop — Davisville Centre Entrance85 m
retail87 m
rail87 m
retail87 m
retail — Lecécé Fleur and Garden91 m
retail — First Class Dry Cleaners92 m
retail93 m
retail — Expedia Cruises93 m
restaurant — Celtic Irish Pub96 m
retail — New You98 m
retail — Rossa Linda99 m
cafe — Tim Hortons100 m
retail — Ritchie Frame101 m
restaurant — Pizza Shab102 m
restaurant — Subway103 m
rail104 m
rail104 m
retail — Flow Tattoo105 m
retail — Sightech106 m
retail — Gateway Newsstands108 m
transit stop — Davisville110 m
highway — Yonge Street111 m
rail — Yonge-University-Spadina Line111 m
parking lot — TTC employee parking113 m
restaurant — Sushi Zone113 m
highway — Yonge Street114 m
rail — Yonge-University-Spadina Line115 m
retail — Epoca Hair Group117 m
transit stop — 1900 Yonge St Entrance118 m
transit stop — Chaplin Crescent119 m
highway — Yonge Street120 m
highway — Yonge Street122 m
transit stop — Davisville124 m
transit stop — Colin Avenue125 m
transit stop — Davisville125 m
transit stop — Davisville Station126 m
rail129 m
transit stop — Belsize Drive130 m
rail131 m
rail132 m
transit stop — Davisville Avenue133 m
cafe — 18feet Espresso Bar & The Cheong134 m
retail — Connect World of Hearing135 m
retail135 m
retail — COBS Bread136 m
retail — LCBO137 m
transit stop — Belsize Drive140 m
retail — Circles & Squares Bakery140 m
transit stop — Davisville Station142 m
retail — men-i-cure145 m
highway — Yonge Street147 m
transit stop — Davisville Station148 m
rail150 m
highway — Yonge Street153 m
retail — Fresh Buy Market154 m
retail — Structube154 m
retail — Rogers156 m
parking lot — Spoiled Baby customer parking160 m
restaurant — Khau Gully162 m
transit stop — Davisville Station162 m
transit stop — Yonge Street East Side163 m
parking lot164 m
restaurant — Cowboy’s Grill165 m
retail169 m
retail — Davisville Home Healthcare169 m
restaurant — Pasta Pantry172 m
parking lot174 m
retail — Steppin' Out176 m
retail — The UPS Store179 m
transit stop — Yonge Street179 m
cafe — J.J's Deli & Cafe180 m
retail — Ms. Potato's Market181 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
26th
Edge activation
71th
Connectivity
58th
Amenity diversity
51th
Natural comfort
34th
Enclosure
86th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park34
Whitney ParkUrban Plaza38
Knox United Church CemeteryParkette31
City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza38
Edgewood ParketteUrban Plaza39

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
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
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 35%

Overall activity

12/ 100

12.3 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

8unknown

Temporal rhythm

13unknown

Pedestrian / cycling flow

36real

Cultural significance

15unknown

Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 31.5/100; cycling/trail 52.5/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Fiona Nelson Parkettematters. 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.