Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Ravine SliversRosedale-Moore Park (98)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Bloor St E - Open Green Space

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~63th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: enclosure.

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

Bloor St E - Open Green Space scores 36.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:escape into natureshaded summer use

Area · 2.35 ha

Vitality Score

37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

36.8 / 100

Citywide

63rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Ravine / Naturalized Park

67th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=213)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

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 · p31

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p39

-10.0

Natural Comfort88 · p97

+5.6

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park40 · p9

-1.0

Connectivity49 · p52

-0.3

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

Bloor St E - Open Green Space works because its natural comfort score (88) is one of the city's strongest (61% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

Bloor St E - Open Green Space is held back by enclosure (40, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

Bloor St E - Open Green Space is an ecological retreat. The urban-vitality numbers are low because the park exists outside the everyday city — that's the point of it.

Tradeoffs

Natural comfort (88) significantly outpaces connectivity (49) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 61% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 7 dead/hostile uses (highway, rail). 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%

48.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 11 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 7 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~758 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m7

Paths/walkways (50 m)2

Sidewalk segments (50 m)11

Transit stops (400 m)7

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.66

Park perimeter758 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%

0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%

87.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 61.3% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~104 m. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage61.3%

Canopy area1.44 ha

Inside ravine system100.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)104 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)95.8

Sample points used163

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

39.8 / 100

7 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 6 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.2 m (~2 floors); 0.9 buildings per 100 m of 758 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m7

Buildings within 50 m7

Avg edge height7.2 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building12.8 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)6

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density0.92 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge14%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)69%

Park perimeter758 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (21)

rail — Rosedale Siding59 m
highway — Bloor Street East62 m
rail — GO Transit - Bala Subdivision63 m
highway — Bayview-Bloor Ramp73 m
rail — Bloor-Danforth Line94 m
rail — Bloor-Danforth Line95 m
highway — Bloor Street East96 m
parking lot102 m
highway — Bayview-Bloor Ramp110 m
highway — Bloor Street East111 m
rail — Bloor-Danforth Line118 m
rail — Bloor-Danforth Line119 m
highway — Drumsnab Road154 m
highway — Bloor Street East166 m
transit stop — Castle Frank Road171 m
highway — Castle Frank Road180 m
highway — Bayview-Bloor Ramp184 m
highway — Bayview-Bloor Ramp187 m
highway — Bayview-Bloor Ramp187 m
highway — Castle Frank Road188 m
highway — Bayview-Bloor Ramp190 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
63th
Edge activation
31th
Connectivity
52th
Amenity diversity
39th
Natural comfort
97th
Enclosure
9th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Lower Highland Creek RavineWaterfront Park31
Westview GreenbeltRavine / Naturalized Park26
Lambton WoodsRavine / Naturalized Park26
Rouge Park - Rouge Beach ParkWaterfront Park29
Linkwood Lane ParketteTower-Community Green Space29

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
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Sonya'S ParkUrban Plaza60
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50

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.

confidence 35%

Overall activity

10/ 100

9.8 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

8unknown

Temporal rhythm

13unknown

Pedestrian / cycling flow

24real

Cultural significance

15unknown

Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 17.5/100; cycling/trail 29.2/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Bloor St E - Open Green Spacematters. 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.
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.
Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.

Data sources

City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)
Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
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.