Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
ARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Bedford Park-Nortown

ARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~59th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of ARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

ARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 36.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.50 ha

What's here

Facilities
WashroomCommunity centreLibrary

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. None of the 15 nearby lots records whether it has accessible spaces.

Path, seating and parking data comes from OpenStreetMap and reflects what volunteers have mapped, not a survey. Absence here means nobody has recorded it. This section does not assess wheelchair access: the relevant OpenStreetMap tag is present on well under 1% of Toronto paths.

Vitality Score
37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
36.7 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
58th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Urban Plaza
38th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=107)
Performance gap
-5
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.

Explain this score

Where did the 37 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 · p62
-12.5
Amenity Diversity27 · p79
-4.5
Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p94
+3.8
Natural Comfort34 · p19
-2.4
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Connectivity55 · p68
+0.9

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

ARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (88) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (27) is also top quartile (12 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

ARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (34, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (88, top decile).

Jacobs reading

ARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds 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 (88) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (58th) but typology rank is more modest (38th): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 5026 m², paved (0% canopy), 11.8 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (transit_stop, community, restaurant) and 8 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
54.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 8 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~356 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m6
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)17
Transit stops (400 m)8 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 8 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.40
Park perimeter356 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
27.3 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, library, washroom). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
33.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~919 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/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)919 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used35

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.2 / 100

42 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (12 mid-rise, 29 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 9.0 m (~3 floors); 11.8 buildings per 100 m of 356 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 12 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m42
Buildings within 50 m42
Avg edge height9.0 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building50.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)12
Low-rise (< 3 floors)29
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density11.79 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge29%
Tower share of edge2%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter356 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.

Source: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (3 types · 4 records)

  • community centre
  • library
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (26)

  • community: Armour Heights Community Recreation Centre0 m
  • community: Toronto Public Library - Armour Heights0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Avenue Rd at Wilson Ave2 m
  • transit stop: Avenue Road3 m
  • parking lot14 m
  • parking lot14 m
  • transit stop: Avenue Rd at Wilson Ave27 m
  • parking lot51 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • transit stop: Avenue Road73 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • transit stop: Ridley Boulevard93 m
  • parking lot93 m
  • restaurant: Domino's93 m
  • transit stop: Ridley Boulevard95 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • transit stop: Avenue Rd at Ripley Blvd153 m
  • transit stop: Avenue Rd at Carmichael Ave164 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • parking lot192 m
  • parking lot196 m
  • parking lot198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    59th
  • Edge activation
    62th
  • Connectivity
    68th
  • Amenity diversity
    79th
  • Natural comfort
    19th
  • Enclosure
    94th

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 ARMOUR HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds matters. 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
70%

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

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.