Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
JENNER JEAN-MARIE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Thorncliffe Park (55)confidence moderate

JENNER JEAN-MARIE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Urban Plaza, below average overall (score 28, rank ~22th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

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

JENNER JEAN-MARIE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 28.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (84). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.37 ha

What's here

Facilities
WashroomCommunity centreLibrary
Vitality Score
28/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
28.1 / 100
Citywide
22nd
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
6th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=115)
Performance gap
-13
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong underperformer

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 28 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 · p20
-12.5
Amenity Diversity27 · p77
-4.5
Border Vacuum Risk84 (risk)
-3.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park77 · p80
+2.7
Natural Comfort35 · p20
-2.3
Connectivity41 · p42
-1.8

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

JENNER JEAN-MARIE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (77) is above average and its amenity diversity (27) is also top quartile (4 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

JENNER JEAN-MARIE COMMUNITY 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; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (84).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

JENNER JEAN-MARIE COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (77) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort: raw 28 vs an expected 42 (gap -13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 3684 m², paved (0% canopy), 4.3 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (community, transit_stop) and 16 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%
40.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 12 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~256 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m1
Paths/walkways (50 m)12
Sidewalk segments (50 m)17
Transit stops (400 m)10
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter256 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
27.3 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, library, 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% weightpartial 45%
34.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~343 m; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.0/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)343 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon1
Tree density1.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used25

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
76.5 / 100

11 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 5 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 16.9 m (~6 floors); 4.3 buildings per 100 m of 256 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m11
Buildings within 50 m11
Avg edge height16.9 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building54.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)4
Low-rise (< 3 floors)5
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density4.30 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge36%
Tower share of edge18%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter256 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
84.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (3 types · 4 records)

  • community centre
  • library
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (33)

  • community: Toronto Public Library - Thorncliffe0 m
  • community: Jenner Jean-Marie Community Recreation Centre0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot2 m
  • parking lot6 m
  • parking lot9 m
  • parking lot22 m
  • transit stop: 49 Thorncliffe Park Drive30 m
  • transit stop: 44 Thorncliffe Park Drive31 m
  • parking lot32 m
  • parking lot44 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • parking lot71 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • parking lot82 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • parking lot96 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • parking lot114 m
  • parking lot121 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • transit stop: 38 Thorncliffe Park Drive145 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • transit stop: 56 Thorncliffe Park Drive156 m
  • transit stop: 35 Thorncliffe Park Drive161 m
  • parking lot174 m
  • transit stop: 75 Thorncliffe Park Drive185 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • parking lot194 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureJENNER JEAN-MARIE 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
    22th
  • Edge activation
    20th
  • Connectivity
    42th
  • Amenity diversity
    77th
  • Natural comfort
    20th
  • Enclosure
    80th

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 JENNER JEAN-MARIE 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
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.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

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.