Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (ravine-leaning)Mount Olive-Silverstone-Jamestown (2)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Thackeray Park

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~53th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

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

Thackeray Park scores 34.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:varies — see metrics

Area · 11.32 ha

Vitality Score

35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence

34.6 / 100

Citywide

53rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Other

81st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Other (n=22)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence medium

modest overperformer

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

Amenity Diversity0 · p63

-10.0

Edge Activation30 · p87

-5.0

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park21 · p1

-2.9

Connectivity47 · p49

-0.6

Natural Comfort46 · p52

-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

Thackeray Park works because its edge activation score (30) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (0) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Thackeray Park is held back by enclosure (21, bottom quartile)— no mid-rise frontage to provide eyes on the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (21, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

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

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its other typology (+8 vs the median in large Other).
Although its citywide rank is low (53rd), it ranks highly among similar others (81st) — strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%

Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (11.3 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 0.1/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

29.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 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%

47.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 15 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,870 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3

Intersections within 100 m7

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)13

Transit stops (400 m)15

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.16

Park perimeter1,870 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%

46.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 6.9% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~314 m; 71 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (6.3/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage6.9%

Canopy area0.78 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)314 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon71

Tree density6.3 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)36.3

Sample points used159

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%

20.7 / 100

2 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.3 m (~1 floors); 0.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,870 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m2

Buildings within 50 m2

Avg edge height4.3 m (~1 floors)

Tallest edge building4.3 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)2

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density0.11 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)96%

Park perimeter1,870 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (14)

transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Kipling Avenue7 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue / Marbrook Lane17 m
transit stop — Kipling Avenue at Steeles Avenue West20 m
parking lot43 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Marbrook Lane47 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Kipling Avenue52 m
transit stop — Kipling Avenue at Steeles Avenue West59 m
parking lot79 m
transit stop — Kipling Avenue at Steeles Avenue West81 m
parking lot83 m
retail — Kestrel Bakery123 m
retail — Furniture Clearance Outlet139 m
retail — Dollar More155 m
transit stop — Kipling Ave at Markbrook Lane178 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
53th
Edge activation
87th
Connectivity
49th
Amenity diversity
63th
Natural comfort
52th
Enclosure
1th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Toronto ZooRavine / Naturalized Park40
City Wide Open SpaceWaterfront Park34
G. Ross Lord ParkRavine / Naturalized Park33
Toronto ZooRavine / Naturalized Park35
Toronto ZooRavine / Naturalized Park36

Most opposite parks

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

High ParkRavine / Naturalized Park47
Ramsden ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71

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 Thackeray 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.
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.
Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.

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.