Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Dovercourt-Wallace Emerson-Junction (93)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Symington Avenue Playground

Athletic / Recreation Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Symington Avenue Playground scores 35.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (17.1). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (66). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:organised sportactive recreation

Area · 0.61 ha

Vitality Score

35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence

35.3 / 100

Citywide

56th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Athletic / Recreation Park

9th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in Athletic / Recreation Park (n=85)

Performance gap

-6

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 35 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 Activation17 · p77

-8.2

Amenity Diversity27 · p92

-4.5

Natural Comfort36 · p26

-2.1

Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p62

+1.7

Border Vacuum Risk66 (risk)

-1.6

Connectivity50 · p56

+0.1

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

Symington Avenue Playground works because its amenity diversity score (27) is in the top tier and its edge activation (17) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Symington Avenue Playground is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (66).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (27, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Symington Avenue Playground 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 (67) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -6; cohort: Athletic / Recreation Park).
Citywide rank is high (56th) but typology rank is more modest (9th) — the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Athletic / Recreation Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 67% of amenity types are athletic (sports_field, tennis)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

17.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (retail, transit_stop, restaurant) and 5 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%

50.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~322 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8

Intersections within 100 m14

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)6

Transit stops (400 m)14

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.48

Park perimeter322 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

27.3 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (fitness, sports_field, 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 30%

35.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~4.2% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 6 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (6.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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)1,500 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon6

Tree density6.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used44

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

66.7 / 100

38 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 37 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.4 m (~2 floors); 11.8 buildings per 100 m of 322 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 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m38

Buildings within 50 m38

Avg edge height6.4 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building9.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)37

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density11.80 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge3%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter322 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

66.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: North Toronto Subdivision, North Toronto Subdivision, parking_lot, 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 (3 types · 4 records)

fitness
sports field
tennis

Nearby active-edge features (45)

rail — North Toronto Subdivision12 m
rail — North Toronto Subdivision15 m
rail28 m
retail — Caldense Bakery33 m
parking lot48 m
retail — The Beer Store50 m
transit stop — Symington Ave at Dupont St72 m
restaurant — Gus Tacos81 m
transit stop — Dupont St at Symington Ave84 m
transit stop — Symington Ave at Adrian Ave92 m
transit stop — Dupont St at Symington Ave96 m
retail — 100% SILK Shop + Gallery98 m
parking lot99 m
retail102 m
parking lot104 m
rail — North Toronto Subdivision105 m
transit stop — Dupont Street106 m
transit stop — Dupont St at Perth Ave115 m
parking lot115 m
restaurant — Taqueria Vegana121 m
restaurant — Souvlaki Emporium122 m
retail — Stay Home Furnishings123 m
retail — The Boho Lab124 m
restaurant — Domino's124 m
restaurant — Thai Lime126 m
restaurant — Koji Sushi127 m
restaurant — Columbian Street Food128 m
retail — Friends Salon Nail & Spa129 m
restaurant — Gaivota Sports Bar130 m
retail — Casa Blanca Hairstyling For Men & Women133 m
parking lot137 m
retail — HIQ Cannabis138 m
restaurant — Defina Wood Fired139 m
restaurant — Enoteca Rossio146 m
transit stop — Symington Ave at Kingsley St155 m
retail — Salon Araujo158 m
parking lot160 m
restaurant — Dotty's161 m
community — Junction Triangle164 m
transit stop — Dupont St at Franklin Ave165 m
parking lot168 m
rail170 m
parking lot171 m
parking lot178 m
cafe — Hale Coffee180 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
56th
Edge activation
77th
Connectivity
56th
Amenity diversity
92th
Natural comfort
26th
Enclosure
62th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Mossgrove ParkCorridor / Linear Park41
Mary Harker ParkNeighbourhood Park39
Wellesworth ParkNeighbourhood Park42
Highland Heights ParkNeighbourhood Park37
Warden ParkNeighbourhood Park34

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
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25

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 Symington Avenue Playgroundmatters. 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.