Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
STEPHEN LEACOCK COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Tam O'Shanter-Sullivan (118)confidence moderate

STEPHEN LEACOCK COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds

Athletic / Recreation Park, middle of the pack overall (score 32, rank ~39th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

STEPHEN LEACOCK COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds scores 32 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (84). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 10.13 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldRunning track
Vitality Score
32/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
32.0 / 100
Citywide
39th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
28th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in large Athletic / Recreation Park (n=27)
Performance gap
-0
raw − expected · context confidence medium
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 32 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 · p28
-12.5
Amenity Diversity28 · p81
-4.3
Border Vacuum Risk84 (risk)
-3.4
Connectivity65 · p83
+2.9
Natural Comfort35 · p20
-2.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p64
+1.6

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

STEPHEN LEACOCK COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds works because its connectivity score (65) is above average and its amenity diversity (28) is also top quartile (12 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 10 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

STEPHEN LEACOCK COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (35, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (84).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (65, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

STEPHEN LEACOCK COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (65) significantly outpaces natural comfort (35): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (84): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 67% of amenity types are athletic (sports_field, track). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (10.1 ha, framed by 6 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (community, transit_stop, retail) and 12 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%
64.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 38 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~1,350 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)2
Sidewalk segments (50 m)38
Transit stops (400 m)12
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.59
Park perimeter1,350 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field, track). 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% weightpartial 45%
34.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~341 m; 10 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.0/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)341 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon10
Tree density1.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used253

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.3 / 100

82 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 76 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.2 m (~2 floors); 6.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,350 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m82
Buildings within 50 m82
Avg edge height7.2 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building39.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)76
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density6.07 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge7%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,350 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 (3 types · 7 records)

  • playground
  • sports field
  • track

Nearby active-edge features (27)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Bay Mills Boulevard0 m
  • transit stop: 2450 Birchmount Road (Stephen Leacock Collegiate)1 m
  • parking lot26 m
  • community26 m
  • parking lot29 m
  • transit stop: 2481 Birchmount Road40 m
  • parking lot40 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Bonis Avenue49 m
  • community: Stephen Leacock Community Centre61 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • parking lot69 m
  • parking lot71 m
  • retail: Daisy Mart75 m
  • parking lot77 m
  • parking lot96 m
  • parking lot120 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • parking lot180 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • parking lot197 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSTEPHEN LEACOCK COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - 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
    39th
  • Edge activation
    28th
  • Connectivity
    83th
  • Amenity diversity
    81th
  • Natural comfort
    20th
  • Enclosure
    64th

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 STEPHEN LEACOCK COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE - Building Groundsmatters. 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: 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.