Civic Squarecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Bendale (127)confidence moderate

Albert Campbell Square

Civic Square, middle of the pack overall (score 33, rank ~45th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Albert Campbell Square scores 33.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (4.6). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (84). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forpublic eventsdowntown gathering

Area · 3.10 ha

What's here

Recreation

PlaygroundIce rinkGarden

Facilities

Drinking waterPicnic areaBenches

Vitality Score

33/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

33.2 / 100

Citywide

45th

of all 3,788 parks

Among Civic Square

29th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Civic Square (n=23)

Performance gap

-8

raw − expected · context confidence medium

modest underperformer

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

Loading map…

Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Explain this score

Where did the 33 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 Activation5 · p64

-11.3

Border Vacuum Risk84 (risk)

-3.4

Natural Comfort36 · p25

-2.1

Amenity Diversity43 · p94

-1.4

Enclosure / Eyes on Park58 · p32

+0.8

Connectivity53 · p65

+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

Albert Campbell Square works because its amenity diversity score (43) is in the top tier and its connectivity (53) is also above-average (6 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Albert Campbell Square is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average): only 1% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (84).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (43, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Albert Campbell Square is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

25 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -8; cohort: medium Civic Square).

Typology classification

confidence 90%

Civic Square

Classified as Civic Square: name flags as civic square + 62 buildings frame the edge

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

4.6 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 33 active uses (retail, transit_stop, restaurant, cafe) and 10 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%

53.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 50 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,014 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m3

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)19

Transit stops (400 m)50

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.49

Park perimeter1,014 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

43.2 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, drinking_water, garden, ice_rink, picnic, 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%

35.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.0% effective canopy (0.9% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~852 m; 9 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.9/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 coverage0.9%

Canopy area0.03 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)852 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon9

Tree density2.9 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)7.6

Sample points used216

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

58.0 / 100

62 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (23 mid-rise, 14 low-rise, 25 tower); avg edge height 49.0 m (~16 floors); 6.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,014 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 25 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 23 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m62

Buildings within 50 m62

Avg edge height49.0 m (~16 floors)

Tallest edge building122.3 m

Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)23

Low-rise (< 3 floors)14

Towers (≥ 13 floors)25

Frontage density6.12 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge37%

Tower share of edge40%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,014 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" that 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 (6 types · 27 records)

bench
drinking water
garden
ice rink
picnic
playground

Nearby active-edge features (80)

parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
retail: Gong Cha3 m
retail: Black Diamond Barber Shop4 m
retail: Venta Skin & Laser Clinic8 m
cafe: CoCo Fresh Tea & Juice9 m
retail: Pawny Tail Pet Grooming & More10 m
retail: Sunlight Super Market & Take Away10 m
retail: Superhairpieces10 m
parking lot21 m
transit stop: Town Centre/Scarborough Centre Station23 m
parking lot37 m
parking lot39 m
parking lot47 m
parking lot47 m
transit stop48 m
retail: Gateway On The Go50 m
transit stop53 m
parking lot64 m
transit stop: Scarborough Centre Station64 m
transit stop65 m
transit stop65 m
transit stop71 m
transit stop71 m
transit stop72 m
parking lot73 m
transit stop74 m
transit stop76 m
parking lot78 m
transit stop85 m
transit stop85 m
transit stop87 m
retail: Gateway Newstands87 m
transit stop88 m
restaurant: Kwan Dim Sum89 m
restaurant: Thaï Express90 m
restaurant: Mymy Chicken92 m
restaurant: Villa Madina92 m
transit stop93 m
restaurant: Jimmy the Greek94 m
retail: Cacao 7095 m
restaurant: Hakka 6ix95 m
restaurant: Caribbean Queen97 m
restaurant: Chipotle101 m
transit stop: Borough Approach East103 m
restaurant: Bourbon St. Grill103 m
restaurant: A&W107 m
restaurant: New York Fries108 m
retail: Winners109 m
restaurant: Chick-fil-A112 m
cafe: Tim Hortons113 m
restaurant: Manchu Wok114 m
restaurant: Shanghai 360114 m
transit stop: Borough Approach West114 m
restaurant: Jollibee117 m
parking lot118 m
retail: Malvón118 m
restaurant: Biryani119 m
retail: Saint Germain Bakery120 m
restaurant: St. Louis Bar & Grill121 m
restaurant: Freshly Squeezed123 m
restaurant: Poulet Rouge123 m
retail: WirelessWave125 m
retail: Godiva Chocolatier128 m
transit stop130 m
restaurant: Cultures130 m
cafe: Real Fruit Bubble Tea131 m
restaurant: KFC134 m
restaurant: Subway134 m
cafe: Tim Hortons135 m
restaurant: Taco Bell136 m
restaurant: McDonald's137 m
retail: Swarovski138 m
retail: Saje138 m
retail: Muji138 m
retail: Squish Candies139 m
retail: Bitter Sweet139 m
parking lot139 m
retail: Lindt140 m
retail: Indigo Spirit141 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

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
45th
Edge activation
64th
Connectivity
65th
Amenity diversity
94th
Natural comfort
25th
Enclosure
32th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Wishing Well ParkNeighbourhood Park37
NORSEMAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL AND POOL - Building GroundsAthletic / Recreation Park39
Clydesdale ParkNeighbourhood Park40
West Rouge ParkNeighbourhood Park39
Kingsview ParkNeighbourhood Park41

Most opposite parks

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

ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza67
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza62
Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49

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 Albert Campbell Squarematters. 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

real Toronto data

City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.
Neighbourhood Profiles
(Pending) Equity context proxy.
OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.