Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Forest Hill South (101)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Tichester Park

Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 39, rank ~72th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Tichester Park scores 39.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (1). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.25 ha

Vitality Score

39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence

39.3 / 100

Citywide

72nd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

62nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 39 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 Activation1 · p64

-12.3

Amenity Diversity21 · p89

-5.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park95 · p99

+4.5

Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)

+2.6

Connectivity60 · p73

+1.9

Natural Comfort39 · p34

-1.7

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

Tichester Park works because its enclosure score (95) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (21) is also top quartile (33 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Tichester Park is held back by natural comfort (39, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (95, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Tichester 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 (95) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 1) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2479 m², paved (0% canopy), 23.8 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

1.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 3 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%

59.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 35 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~214 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)9

Transit stops (400 m)35

Estimated entrances1

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.81

Park perimeter214 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis). Diversity, not raw count, 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

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 36%

38.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~4.2% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~603 m; 6 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (6.0/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)603 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon6

Tree density6.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used17

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

95.1 / 100

51 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (33 mid-rise, 17 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 14.3 m (~5 floors); 23.8 buildings per 100 m of 214 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 33 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m51

Buildings within 50 m51

Avg edge height14.3 m (~5 floors)

Tallest edge building44.3 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)33

Low-rise (< 3 floors)17

Towers (≥ 13 floors)1

Frontage density23.84 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge65%

Tower share of edge2%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter214 m

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

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" — 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 (2 types · 2 records)

playground
tennis

Nearby active-edge features (27)

parking lot11 m
parking lot34 m
transit stop — Bathurst St at Tichester Rd61 m
transit stop — Bathurst St at Tichester Rd75 m
parking lot79 m
parking lot101 m
parking lot124 m
retail — Prayasha125 m
parking lot132 m
transit stop — Heath St Entrance135 m
retail — Pet Mama142 m
rail144 m
retail — Neighbors Market153 m
rail154 m
parking lot168 m
transit stop — St. Clair West168 m
transit stop — St. Clair West Station170 m
transit stop — St. Clair West172 m
transit stop — Bathurst St at St Clair Ave West174 m
transit stop — Bathurst St at Claxton Blvd176 m
retail180 m
transit stop — St. Clair West Station183 m
parking lot184 m
retail — Daniel's Drug Mart185 m
transit stop — Bathurst St at Lonsdale Rd190 m
retail — Joe Fresh197 m
parking lot197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
72th
Edge activation
64th
Connectivity
73th
Amenity diversity
89th
Natural comfort
34th
Enclosure
99th

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.

Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49

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 Tichester Parkmatters. 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.

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.