Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
EARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
ParketteType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)Danforth

EARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Parkette, above average overall (score 44, rank ~83th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: connectivity.

No photograph yet. If you have one of EARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

EARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 43.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and amenity diversity. Weakest: edge activation (6.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.94 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldRunning trackGarden
Facilities
WashroomPicnic areaBenchesCommunity centre

Getting around

Paths

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

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

Typically 34 m to the nearest bench, and 62 m at the far end.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. 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
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
43.9 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
83rd
of all 3,753 parks
Among Parkette
88th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=222)
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.

Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.

Explain this score

Where did the 44 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 Activation6 · p67
-10.9
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park78 · p81
+2.8
Connectivity43 · p46
-1.4
Natural Comfort45 · p47
-0.7
Amenity Diversity52 · p98
+0.4

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

EARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (52) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (78) is also top quartile (8 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

EARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - 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 amenity diversity (52, top decile).

Jacobs reading

EARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds 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 (78) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 6): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+7 vs the median in small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (9424 m²) with strong building frontage (35.5 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
6.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (community) and 1 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%
43.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 7 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 1 subway or GO station, 7 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~406 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)7
Transit stops (400 m)8 (1 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 7 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.72
Park perimeter406 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
51.9 / 100

8 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, bench, garden, picnic, playground, sports_field, …). 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% weightmeasured 75%
45.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~9.8% effective canopy (1.5% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~686 m; 14 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (14.0/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 coverage1.5%
Canopy area0.01 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)686 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon14
Tree density14.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)11.5
Sample points used65

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
77.7 / 100

144 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 137 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.6 m (~2 floors); 35.5 buildings per 100 m of 406 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m144
Buildings within 50 m144
Avg edge height6.6 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building15.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)137
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density35.47 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge5%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter406 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 (8 types · 22 records)

  • community centre
  • bench
  • garden
  • picnic
  • playground
  • sports field
  • track
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (29)

  • community: Earl Beatty Community Centre0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • parking lot160 m
  • parking lot176 m
  • retail: Active Green + Ross176 m
  • retail: Mimi's Convenience179 m
  • retail: Triple A Cleaning Supplies & Equipments180 m
  • retail: Byron's Bikes180 m
  • retail180 m
  • restaurant: Lucy Ethiopian Restaurant180 m
  • retail: Plank Road Market180 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • retail182 m
  • restaurant: Trecce183 m
  • cafe: Do Good Donuts185 m
  • restaurant: Local 1794185 m
  • restaurant: BarBurrito187 m
  • restaurant: Happy Day's187 m
  • transit stop: Woodmount Avenue189 m
  • retail: Ampersand Bakehouse190 m
  • retail194 m
  • restaurant: Cumin196 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue197 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue198 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue199 m
  • transit stop: Coxwell200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureEARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds
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
    83th
  • Edge activation
    67th
  • Connectivity
    46th
  • Amenity diversity
    98th
  • Natural comfort
    47th
  • Enclosure
    81th

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 EARL BEATTY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds 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.
  • 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.