June Rowlands Park
Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 56, rank ~99th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.
Photo by S K via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
June Rowlands Park scores 56.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (33.8). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.
Area · 2.65 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Street context
Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Top-down view
City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.
City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer
Explain this score
Where did the 56 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Tradeoffs
- Strong physical conditions (score 56) but weak observed activity signals (11) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.
- High connectivity (73) coexists with little programming evidence — easy to reach, but no recurring civic life detected.
Performance in context
- This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 56 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +19).
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.7 ha, framed by 18 mid-rise vs 12 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 27 active uses (transit_stop, retail, school, restaurant) and 6 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 25 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 9 estimated access points across ~658 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
5 distinct amenity types in the park (picnic, playground, sports_field, tennis, washroom). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~14.8% effective canopy (4.3% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~954 m; 56 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (21.1/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
116 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (18 mid-rise, 86 low-rise, 12 tower); avg edge height 14.5 m (~5 floors); 17.6 buildings per 100 m of 658 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 12 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 18 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum 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
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 (5 types · 6 records)
- picnic
- playground
- sports field
- tennis
- washroom
Nearby active-edge features (63)
- transit stop — Mount Pleasant Road West Side1 m
- transit stop — Acacia Road1 m
- transit stop — Davisville Avenue1 m
- transit stop — Mount Pleasant Road16 m
- retail — Eye Studio23 m
- restaurant — Subway25 m
- transit stop — Acacia Road31 m
- restaurant — Starving Artist Waffles & Espresso31 m
- transit stop — Mount Pleasant Road32 m
- retail — Saati Fine Jewellery32 m
- restaurant — Millwood Bread & Butter33 m
- retail — Second Nature Boutique37 m
- retail — Mountain Convenience39 m
- transit stop — Davisville Avenue40 m
- parking lot44 m
- restaurant — Sushi Supreme45 m
- retail — Neptune Hairstyling48 m
- retail — Pampered Paws50 m
- retail — Ixxy Vape54 m
- restaurant — Krabi Thai Cuisine55 m
- parking lot57 m
- retail — Bob's Cleaners59 m
- parking lot60 m
- retail — E. Bapst Custom Upholstering63 m
- restaurant — Hazel's Diner68 m
- school — Toronto Prep School72 m
- parking lot73 m
- restaurant — Wild Chicory74 m
- retail — CCMH Toronto Student Intern Clinic74 m
- retail — Tech-Net Professional Auto Service77 m
- parking lot82 m
- parking lot92 m
- transit stop — Belsize Drive96 m
- parking lot111 m
- transit stop — Belsize Drive115 m
- retail — Mabel’s Fables120 m
- parking lot122 m
- restaurant — The Belsize Public House125 m
- retail — The Box Spot127 m
- parking lot141 m
- retail — Manderley Fine Furniture150 m
- restaurant — Marigold Indian Bistro151 m
- retail — Brentview Electronics156 m
- parking lot161 m
- parking lot164 m
- retail — Durant Sessions166 m
- restaurant — Instant Du Palais170 m
- retail — Elly Amar Studio171 m
- retail — Circle K175 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons175 m
- retail — Frame Master175 m
- retail — Livingstone & Co.175 m
- parking lot176 m
- parking lot178 m
- parking lot180 m
- parking lot182 m
- retail — Royal Antiques Rug Gallery188 m
- parking lot192 m
- parking lot192 m
- retail — Helene Clarkson193 m
- parking lot194 m
- parking lot198 m
- restaurant — OffCourt Bistro199 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality99th
- Edge activation89th
- Connectivity94th
- Amenity diversity99th
- Natural comfort61th
- Enclosure94th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Baird ParkParkette55
- Stanley Park North - TorontoAthletic / Recreation Park53
- Regent Park Athletic GroundsAthletic / Recreation Park52
- Fred Hamilton PlaygroundNeighbourhood Park56
- Lytton ParkRavine / Naturalized Park54
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Visitor signals
Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only — no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.
“Small neighborhood park with a baseball diamond, 6 tennis courts, a volleyball court & splash pad.” — Google editorial summary
p93 citywide · p90 within Neighbourhood Park
Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
Human activity signals
Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.
Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.
Does this score feel accurate?
Your read of June Rowlands 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.
- Diversify what people can do in the park — playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden — even small additions raise this score.
Data sources
- City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.