Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
KEELE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)High Park North (88)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

KEELE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Other, in the top tier overall (score 45, rank ~88th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

KEELE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 44.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:varies — see metrics

Area · 1.27 ha

Vitality Score
45/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
44.6 / 100
Citywide
88th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
28
median in medium Other (n=60)
Performance gap
+16
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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

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
Amenity Diversity12 · p71
-7.6
Edge Activation24 · p79
-6.5
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park84 · p89
+3.3
Connectivity62 · p77
+2.3
Natural Comfort37 · p30
-1.9

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

KEELE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (84) is in the top tier and its edge activation (24) is also top quartile (7 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

KEELE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds 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 (84, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

KEELE 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 (84) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 24) — frame without animation.
  • 12 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy — passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
  • Strong physical conditions (score 45) but weak observed activity signals (8) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 45 versus an expected 28 for similar parks (medium Other) (gap +16).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (1.3 ha, 1 amenity types, frontage 17.6/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
24.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop, school, retail) 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%
61.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 5 mapped paths/walkways and 22 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~563 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m8
Paths/walkways (50 m)5
Sidewalk segments (50 m)22
Transit stops (400 m)20
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.60
Park perimeter563 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre). 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% weightpartial 45%
37.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~468 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.9/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)468 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon5
Tree density3.9 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used88

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
83.5 / 100

99 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 80 low-rise, 12 tower); avg edge height 11.9 m (~4 floors); 17.6 buildings per 100 m of 563 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 12 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m99
Buildings within 50 m99
Avg edge height11.9 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building48.6 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)80
Towers (≥ 13 floors)12
Frontage density17.58 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge7%
Tower share of edge12%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter563 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • community centre

Nearby active-edge features (32)

  • school — Mountview Alternative School Junior0 m
  • transit stop — Glenlake Avenue21 m
  • transit stop — Glenlake Avenue41 m
  • retail — The bike spa!55 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • transit stop — Keele Station112 m
  • transit stop — Keele Street114 m
  • transit stop — Keele Station116 m
  • transit stop — Keele127 m
  • transit stop — Keele Station127 m
  • transit stop — Keele Station127 m
  • transit stop — Keele130 m
  • transit stop — Keele Station138 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • retail — Money Mart152 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • transit stop — Bloor Street West167 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line174 m
  • retail — Neighbours175 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line176 m
  • restaurant — Sushi Place179 m
  • cafe — Ichi Cha Bubble Tea181 m
  • restaurant — Pizzaville183 m
  • transit stop183 m
  • retail — First Choice Haircutters188 m
  • highway — Bloor Street West189 m
  • highway — Bloor Street West191 m
  • retail — 7-Eleven193 m
  • parking lot193 m
  • parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureKEELE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    88th
  • Edge activation
    79th
  • Connectivity
    77th
  • Amenity diversity
    71th
  • Natural comfort
    30th
  • Enclosure
    89th

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

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
8/ 100
8.0 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
8unknown
Temporal rhythm
13unknown
Pedestrian / cycling flow
15real
Cultural significance
15unknown

Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 7.3/100; cycling/trail 12.1/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of KEELE COMMUNITY 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

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.
  • 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.