Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
HILLCREST LIBRARY - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksHillcrest Village (48)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

HILLCREST LIBRARY - Building Grounds

Parkette, above average overall (score 41, rank ~80th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Toronto Public Library - Hillcrest Branch via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

HILLCREST LIBRARY - Building Grounds scores 41.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park 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:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.72 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
41.4 / 100
Citywide
80th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
84th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in small Parkette (n=218)
Performance gap
+5
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

cached 5/9/2026

City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.

HILLCREST LIBRARY - Building Grounds — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

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
Amenity Diversity0 · p39
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Edge Activation41 · p93
-2.2
Natural Comfort42 · p43
-1.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park60 · p37
+1.0
Connectivity50 · p54
-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

HILLCREST LIBRARY - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (41) is in the top tier.

What limits this park

HILLCREST LIBRARY - Building Grounds 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 edge activation (41, top decile).

Jacobs reading

HILLCREST LIBRARY - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+5 vs the median in small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (7192 m²) with strong building frontage (13.6 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
41.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (retail, transit_stop, restaurant) 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
49.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 7 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~366 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)7
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.09
Park perimeter366 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%
42.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.6% effective canopy (3.8% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~670 m; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.0/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 coverage3.8%
Canopy area0.03 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)670 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon8
Tree density8.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)23.5
Sample points used52

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
60.4 / 100

50 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 50 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.8 m (~2 floors); 13.6 buildings per 100 m of 366 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m50
Buildings within 50 m50
Avg edge height4.8 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building8.3 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)50
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density13.64 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter366 m

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

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" — they 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (23)

  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop — Castlebury Crescent30 m
  • transit stop — Clansman Boulevard34 m
  • retail — Galati Market Fresh46 m
  • retail — Superior Dollar66 m
  • retail80 m
  • retail — The UPS Store84 m
  • restaurant — Ko-Sam89 m
  • parking lot93 m
  • retail94 m
  • retail109 m
  • retail — Karats Fine Jewellery113 m
  • retail117 m
  • parking lot121 m
  • retail — Freedom Mobile121 m
  • retail — Kitchen Food Fair125 m
  • retail129 m
  • restaurant — Subway163 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons166 m
  • restaurant — Pizza Pizza168 m
  • retail179 m
  • retail185 m
  • retail192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHILLCREST LIBRARY - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    80th
  • Edge activation
    93th
  • Connectivity
    54th
  • Amenity diversity
    39th
  • Natural comfort
    43th
  • Enclosure
    37th

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.

medium-confidence match
Visitor signal score
40/ 100
40.1 / 100

p43 citywide · p43 within Parkette

Volume (saturated)18
Density / ha61
Rating contribution73
Match dampener×0.85
Average rating
★ 3.9
out of 5
Ratings collected
111
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match medium (0.65 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.

confidence 50%
Overall activity
8/ 100
8.2 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
12real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
23unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of HILLCREST LIBRARY - 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

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

  • 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.