Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
BOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Palmerston-Little Italy (80)confidence moderate

BOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~65th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

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

BOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 38 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). 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
WashroomCommunity centre
Vitality Score
38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
38.0 / 100
Citywide
65th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
47th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=360)
Performance gap
+0
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 38 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 · p18
-12.5
Amenity Diversity21 · p68
-5.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p94
+3.8
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Natural Comfort41 · p38
-1.3
Connectivity50 · p59
-0.0

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

BOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (88) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (21) is also above-average (15 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

BOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

BOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION 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 (88) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1162 m², paved (0% canopy), 39.3 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (school) and 7 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
49.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~148 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)8
Transit stops (400 m)12
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.03
Park perimeter148 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, washroom). Diversity, not raw count, 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

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 36%
41.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.1% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 13.3% inside the ravine system; 3 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: ravine, 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 system13.3%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon3
Tree density3.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)56.7
Sample points used15

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.1 / 100

58 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 43 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.0 m (~3 floors); 39.3 buildings per 100 m of 148 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 15 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m58
Buildings within 50 m58
Avg edge height8.0 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building17.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)15
Low-rise (< 3 floors)43
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density39.25 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge26%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter148 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" that 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 (2 types · 2 records)

  • community centre
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (56)

  • parking lot24 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West57 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West57 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West59 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West63 m
  • school: West End Alternative Secondary School64 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West68 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West79 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West114 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West115 m
  • parking lot118 m
  • retail: Kompas Express Tour Operator118 m
  • community: Korean Comprehensive Welfare Centre121 m
  • restaurant: Madras Masala122 m
  • retail: Goldspell124 m
  • restaurant: Gochu Libre126 m
  • retail129 m
  • restaurant: Banjara Indian Cuisine130 m
  • transit stop131 m
  • retail: Cowlick140 m
  • restaurant: Chantecler141 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West142 m
  • retail: Cheques Cashed145 m
  • cafe: Hello Coffee146 m
  • retail148 m
  • retail: Progressive Orthotic Design Inc151 m
  • restaurant: Latin World152 m
  • restaurant: Simple Burger153 m
  • retail156 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West156 m
  • retail157 m
  • restaurant: Lamhan Banh Mi157 m
  • retail: Tess Hair Salon160 m
  • retail: Joo Beauty Salon161 m
  • retail: Ba Noi161 m
  • transit stop161 m
  • restaurant: Subway162 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West163 m
  • retail: D&W Wellness165 m
  • restaurant: Shawarma Daddy166 m
  • retail: Millicent166 m
  • restaurant: Fresh Habesha167 m
  • retail: Clarisse Hair Salon169 m
  • retail: Green Hair Salon170 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West173 m
  • restaurant: Selam Restaurant & Lounge174 m
  • retail174 m
  • restaurant: Christie Pits Pub179 m
  • retail: Toronto Gold180 m
  • retail: Freta Injera & Variety Store186 m
  • restaurant: Riki Sushi190 m
  • retail: Sebang Travel KC Tours194 m
  • restaurant: Kernels Popcorn196 m
  • retail: Gluten Free by L’Artisan197 m
  • retail: Goa Lash Studio197 m
  • retail: Designs By Nature Gems200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureBOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION 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
    65th
  • Edge activation
    18th
  • Connectivity
    59th
  • Amenity diversity
    68th
  • Natural comfort
    38th
  • Enclosure
    94th

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 BOB ABATE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - 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
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: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.