Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Close Avenue Parkette, site photograph
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)South Parkdale

Close Avenue Parkette

Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 45, rank ~84th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Femke Kuipers via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Close Avenue Parkette scores 44.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (21). 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 · 0.21 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Benches

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (7 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 80 m away. 1 of 15 nearby lots reporting 1 accessible space.

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
45/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
44.5 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
84th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Urban Plaza
72nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
Performance gap
+7
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Close Avenue Parkette, aerial top-down view
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 · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 45 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 Activation24 · p79
-6.5
Amenity Diversity21 · p68
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park94 · p98
+4.4
Natural Comfort37 · p29
-1.9
Connectivity47 · p53
-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

Close Avenue Parkette works because its enclosure score (94) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (24) is also top quartile (18 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Close Avenue Parkette is held back by natural comfort (37, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (94, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Close Avenue 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 (94) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 24): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+7 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2121 m², paved (0% canopy), 18.6 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
24.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (retail, transit_stop) and 2 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
46.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 6 streetcar or LRT stops, 1 bus stop within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~183 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)10
Transit stops (400 m)7 (0 subway/GO, 6 streetcar/LRT, 1 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.19
Park perimeter183 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 36%
37.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~510 m; 4 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (4.0/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)510 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon4
Tree density4.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used17

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
93.8 / 100

34 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (18 mid-rise, 16 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 11.2 m (~4 floors); 18.6 buildings per 100 m of 183 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 18 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m34
Buildings within 50 m34
Avg edge height11.2 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building26.3 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)18
Low-rise (< 3 floors)16
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density18.61 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge53%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter183 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 (2 types · 10 records)

  • playground
  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (26)

  • transit stop: Jameson Avenue45 m
  • transit stop: Jameson Avenue71 m
  • retail: Central Market77 m
  • parking lot80 m
  • parking lot83 m
  • retail: Super Variety91 m
  • retail: Dollarama104 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • transit stop: Dunn Avenue112 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • retail: No Frills124 m
  • parking lot129 m
  • transit stop: Dunn Avenue140 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • retail142 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • retail: Monster Wash154 m
  • restaurant: The Originals Dining Lounge155 m
  • parking lot156 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • parking lot177 m
  • parking lot180 m
  • parking lot185 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureClose Avenue 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
    84th
  • Edge activation
    79th
  • Connectivity
    53th
  • Amenity diversity
    68th
  • Natural comfort
    29th
  • Enclosure
    98th

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.

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.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score41 / 100
41.0 / 100

p45 citywide · p37 within Urban Plaza

Volume (saturated)5
Density / ha55
Rating contribution75
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.0
out of 5
Ratings collected
26
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.97 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 Close Avenue 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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.

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.