Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Black Creek (24)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Elm Park - North York

Neighbourhood Park, above average overall (score 39, rank ~71th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Elm Park - North York scores 38.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 4.78 ha

Vitality Score

39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

38.9 / 100

Citywide

71st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

58th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

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 Activation0 · p44

-12.5

Amenity Diversity21 · p90

-5.8

Connectivity74 · p94

+4.7

Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p43

+1.2

Natural Comfort58 · p72

+1.1

Border Vacuum Risk48 (risk)

+0.2

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

Elm Park - North York works because its connectivity score (74) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (21) is also top quartile (11 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk).

What limits this park

Elm Park - North York's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 48.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (74, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Elm Park - North York 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 (62) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 4.8 ha, framed by 3 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 7 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%

73.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 34 mapped paths/walkways and 31 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 11 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 18 estimated access points across ~1,092 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m10

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)34

Sidewalk segments (50 m)31

Transit stops (400 m)11

Estimated entrances18

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.92

Park perimeter1,092 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 (community_centre, playground). 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% weightmeasured 75%

57.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~28.4% effective canopy (0.8% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~624 m; 194 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (40.6/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.8%

Canopy area0.04 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)624 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon194

Tree density40.6 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)7.0

Sample points used238

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

61.7 / 100

97 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 94 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.9 m (~2 floors); 8.9 buildings per 100 m of 1,092 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m97

Buildings within 50 m97

Avg edge height4.9 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building37.9 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3

Low-rise (< 3 floors)94

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density8.88 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge3%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,092 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

48.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (2 types · 2 records)

community centre
playground

Nearby active-edge features (23)

parking lot0 m
parking lot22 m
parking lot30 m
parking lot39 m
parking lot68 m
parking lot87 m
parking lot91 m
parking lot117 m
cafe — Hoang Viet129 m
retail — Dollar Bazaar131 m
retail — Pacific Fresh Food Mart133 m
retail — Huge Coin Laundry133 m
restaurant — Tristar Chinese Restaurant136 m
transit stop144 m
retail — Jaydee's Salon & Beauty Supply150 m
restaurant — Delight Food153 m
restaurant — Little Caesars155 m
parking lot160 m
transit stop164 m
parking lot174 m
parking lot182 m
retail — Super Stop194 m
parking lot196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
71th
Edge activation
44th
Connectivity
94th
Amenity diversity
90th
Natural comfort
72th
Enclosure
43th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Scarlett Mills ParkRavine / Naturalized Park34
Shawn "Blu" Rose ParkNeighbourhood Park42
Harding ParkNeighbourhood Park43
Audrelane ParkCorridor / Linear Park43
North ParkRavine / Naturalized Park41

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza57
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63

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 Elm Park - North Yorkmatters. 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.
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.