Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Superior Park — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Mimico (includes Humber Bay Shores) (17)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Superior Park

Parkette, below average overall (score 27, rank ~20th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: connectivity.

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

Superior Park scores 27.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.39 ha

Vitality Score
27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
27.4 / 100
Citywide
20th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
17th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in small Parkette (n=218)
Performance gap
-9
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 27 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 · p43
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p49
-10.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park84 · p90
+3.4
Border Vacuum Risk84 (risk)
-3.4
Connectivity40 · p34
-2.1
Natural Comfort63 · p77
+1.9

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

Superior Park works because its enclosure score (84) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (63) is also top quartile (11 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Superior Park is held back by connectivity (40, below-average); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (84).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (84, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Superior 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 (84) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -9; cohort: small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (3912 m²) with strong building frontage (5.2 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (retail, cafe, restaurant, transit_stop) and 14 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%
39.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 5 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~330 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)5
Transit stops (400 m)9
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.30
Park perimeter330 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% weightmeasured 75%
62.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 22.2% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~67 m; 11 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage22.2%
Canopy area0.09 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)67 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon11
Tree density11.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)76.4
Sample points used27

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
84.0 / 100

17 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (11 mid-rise, 6 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 10.5 m (~4 floors); 5.2 buildings per 100 m of 330 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 11 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m17
Buildings within 50 m17
Avg edge height10.5 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building18.6 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)11
Low-rise (< 3 floors)6
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.16 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge65%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter330 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: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (71)

  • parking lot8 m
  • parking lot27 m
  • parking lot28 m
  • parking lot28 m
  • parking lot34 m
  • parking lot36 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • restaurant — Pearl Sushi66 m
  • parking lot69 m
  • parking lot71 m
  • retail — Elevate Barbershop77 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • cafe — Mimico Coffee & Bagel79 m
  • retail — A-1 Bargain & Dollar Store79 m
  • restaurant — New West City Resturant & Bar80 m
  • parking lot85 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • parking lot95 m
  • transit stop — Superior Avenue96 m
  • retail — Glow Body Tans & Spa96 m
  • restaurant — Kothur99 m
  • transit stop — Superior Avenue99 m
  • retail — Specs and Spines113 m
  • retail — Home New Port113 m
  • retail114 m
  • restaurant — Subway115 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • retail — Lost Beaches Travel Co.118 m
  • retail — Home Hardware119 m
  • retail — Joe's Variety Plus122 m
  • parking lot126 m
  • retail — A-1 Discount Variety & Dollar126 m
  • retail — Paul's Laundromat128 m
  • restaurant — Alppalachia128 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • retail130 m
  • restaurant — Golden Stove131 m
  • restaurant — 2 for 3 Pizza133 m
  • retail — Aquarium & Flowers138 m
  • restaurant — New Flower Drum141 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • retail — Tammy's Spaw146 m
  • retail — Vapers Market147 m
  • retail — Kennel Cafe151 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • retail — Great Finds156 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West160 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • restaurant — Everest Hakka House163 m
  • restaurant — LaVinia Restaurant168 m
  • parking lot168 m
  • restaurant — Tru Bubble Tea Redefined174 m
  • restaurant — Nimman174 m
  • parking lot177 m
  • transit stop — Mimico Avenue177 m
  • retail — Jackpot Cannabis178 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • transit stop — Mimico Avenue182 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • retail — Freedom Mobile189 m
  • retail — BooBoo Pet Grooming Serices191 m
  • retail — Universal Bakery191 m
  • parking lot193 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • retail — Gud Daae gluten free sandwiches196 m
  • parking lot197 m
  • retail — Coin Laundry199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSuperior Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    20th
  • Edge activation
    43th
  • Connectivity
    34th
  • Amenity diversity
    49th
  • Natural comfort
    77th
  • Enclosure
    90th

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 Superior 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.

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

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.
  • 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.