Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Kenaston Gardens Parkette, site photograph
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Bayview Village

Kenaston Gardens Parkette

Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 41, rank ~75th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: connectivity.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Kenaston Gardens Parkette, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Kenaston Gardens Parkette scores 40.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (10). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.12 ha

What's here

Facilities
Public art

Getting around

Paths

52 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 25 m away. None of the 7 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
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
40.9 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
75th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Urban Plaza
60th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
Performance gap
+3
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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Public art in this park

  • Image of artwork: Near North Park

    1Near North Park

    Reinhard Reitzenstein, 2012

    Architecture / Landscape · Cast bronze tree and boulders

    Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art

  • Image of artwork: Untitled

    2Untitled

    Reinhard Reitzenstein, 2002

    Architecture / Landscape · Glass

    Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 41 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 Activation10 · p70
-10.0
Amenity Diversity16 · p65
-6.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park91 · p97
+4.1
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity49 · p57
-0.3
Natural Comfort51 · p64
+0.1

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

Kenaston Gardens Parkette works because its enclosure score (91) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (10) is also above-average (16 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Kenaston Gardens Parkette doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (91, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Kenaston Gardens Parkette 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 (91) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 10): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1156 m², paved (11% canopy), 23.6 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
10.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 5 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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% weightpartial 65%
48.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 1 subway or GO station, 5 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~140 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)4
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)6 (1 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 5 bus)
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.15
Park perimeter140 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
15.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (art). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 2 public artworks in the park add a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 60%
50.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 11.1% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~671 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/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 coverage11.1%
Canopy area0.01 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)671 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)50.3
Sample points used18

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
91.2 / 100

33 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (16 mid-rise, 14 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 20.2 m (~7 floors); 23.6 buildings per 100 m of 140 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 16 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m33
Buildings within 50 m33
Avg edge height20.2 m (~7 floors)
Tallest edge building60.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)16
Low-rise (< 3 floors)14
Towers (≥ 13 floors)3
Frontage density23.61 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge49%
Tower share of edge9%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter140 m

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

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" 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 (1)

  • art

Nearby active-edge features (25)

  • parking lot25 m
  • retail: Super Vape50 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Av54 m
  • rail: Line 4 Sheppard66 m
  • rail: Line 4 Sheppard66 m
  • parking lot67 m
  • parking lot71 m
  • transit stop: Bayview71 m
  • retail: Shell73 m
  • transit stop: Bayview Avenue75 m
  • transit stop: Bayview79 m
  • transit stop: Bayview Avenue102 m
  • parking lot107 m
  • transit stop: Barberry Place118 m
  • transit stop: Barberry Place118 m
  • transit stop: Bayview Av - East128 m
  • rail128 m
  • rail129 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Avenue East (Bayview Station)138 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Avenue East (Bayview Station)146 m
  • transit stop: Bayview Av - West154 m
  • parking lot174 m
  • retail: Circle K183 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureKenaston Gardens Parkette
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
    75th
  • Edge activation
    70th
  • Connectivity
    57th
  • Amenity diversity
    65th
  • Natural comfort
    64th
  • Enclosure
    97th

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 Kenaston Gardens Parkette 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.
  • 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.

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.