Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Bobbie Rosenfeld Park, site photograph
Back to map
ParketteType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Harbourfront-CityPlace

Bobbie Rosenfeld Park

Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 32, rank ~40th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Chris Woodrich, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Data updated

Bobbie Rosenfeld Park scores 32.3 / 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 · 0.19 ha

What's here

Facilities
Public art

Getting around

Paths

89 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 91 m away. None of the 7 nearby lots records whether it has 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
32/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
32.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
40th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Parkette
42nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in pocket Parkette (n=263)
Performance gap
+1
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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

More photographs of Bobbie Rosenfeld Park

4 more, from Wikimedia Commons and from people who sent them in. Each is someone else’s work: select one to see who took it and the licence it carries.

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Bobbie Rosenfeld Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view. City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Public art in this park

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 32 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 · p23
-12.5
Amenity Diversity15 · p65
-7.0
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity39 · p40
-2.1
Natural Comfort39 · p32
-1.7
Enclosure / Eyes on Park56 · p29
+0.6

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

Bobbie Rosenfeld Park works because its amenity diversity score (15) is middle of the pack.

What limits this park

Bobbie Rosenfeld Park is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

Bobbie Rosenfeld Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (1854 m²) with strong building frontage (3.9 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (restaurant, retail, transit_stop, cafe) and 16 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
39.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 1 streetcar or LRT stop, 3 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~228 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m1
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)13
Transit stops (400 m)4 (0 subway/GO, 1 streetcar/LRT, 3 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.44
Park perimeter228 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
15.2 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (art). 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 in the park and 1 nearby add a bonus for the number of works.

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

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 36%
38.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~3.5% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~335 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.0/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)335 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon5
Tree density5.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used11

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
56.3 / 100

9 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 5 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 56.0 m (~19 floors); 3.9 buildings per 100 m of 228 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m9
Buildings within 50 m9
Avg edge height56.0 m (~19 floors)
Tallest edge building443.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)5
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density3.95 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge33%
Tower share of edge11%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter228 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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)

  • art

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • restaurant: le Grill0 m
  • restaurant18 m
  • transit stop25 m
  • restaurant47 m
  • retail: Jay's Shop56 m
  • rail59 m
  • retail: Ripley's Cargo Hold Gift Shop59 m
  • rail61 m
  • restaurant: The Rec Room65 m
  • rail76 m
  • restaurant: 360 Restaurant77 m
  • cafe: Ripley's Café78 m
  • rail79 m
  • rail80 m
  • rail81 m
  • rail83 m
  • rail83 m
  • rail86 m
  • rail88 m
  • rail91 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • rail92 m
  • rail94 m
  • rail97 m
  • rail100 m
  • retail: CN Tower101 m
  • rail103 m
  • retail: Rogers106 m
  • rail106 m
  • rail109 m
  • rail109 m
  • restaurant: Beavertails110 m
  • rail112 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • rail115 m
  • parking lot117 m
  • rail118 m
  • rail120 m
  • rail120 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor121 m
  • rail122 m
  • rail123 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor124 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor124 m
  • rail124 m
  • rail125 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor125 m
  • retail: Rogers125 m
  • rail126 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor126 m
  • rail126 m
  • rail127 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor127 m
  • rail128 m
  • rail128 m
  • rail129 m
  • rail129 m
  • rail129 m
  • rail130 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor130 m
  • rail130 m
  • rail130 m
  • rail130 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor132 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor132 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor132 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor134 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor135 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor135 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor136 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor137 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor138 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor138 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor138 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor140 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor141 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • rail144 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor144 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor145 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureBobbie Rosenfeld 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
    40th
  • Edge activation
    23th
  • Connectivity
    40th
  • Amenity diversity
    65th
  • Natural comfort
    32th
  • Enclosure
    29th

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 Bobbie Rosenfeld 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.
  • 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.