Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
ELLESMERE YARD - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Dorset Park (126)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

ELLESMERE YARD - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 18, rank ~2th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

ELLESMERE YARD - Building Grounds scores 18 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 9.43 ha

Vitality Score
18/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
18.0 / 100
Citywide
2nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
0th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
35
median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=66)
Performance gap
-17
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 18 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 · p23
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p33
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Natural Comfort34 · p19
-2.3
Connectivity41 · p35
-1.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park48 · p12
-0.2

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

ELLESMERE YARD - Building Grounds doesn't have a clear standout dimension — the strongest measured signal is connectivity, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

ELLESMERE YARD - Building Grounds is held back by enclosure (48, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (48, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

ELLESMERE YARD - Building Grounds is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort — raw 18 vs an expected 35 (gap -17).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Parkalso reads as Waterfront Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 9.4 ha, framed by 4 mid-rise vs 0 towers. Secondary read: Waterfront Park (nearest waterbody within ~0 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 14 active uses (retail, transit_stop, restaurant, cafe) and 18 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%
40.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 12 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~1,356 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m12
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)2
Transit stops (400 m)20
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.29
Park perimeter1,356 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% weightpartial 45%
34.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 4.7% inside the ravine system; 0.4% water surface; 13 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.4/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, 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 system4.7%
Water surface inside park0.4%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green99.6%
City-mapped trees inside polygon13
Tree density1.4 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)19.5
Sample points used256

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
47.8 / 100

26 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 22 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 1.9 buildings per 100 m of 1,356 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m26
Buildings within 50 m26
Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building13.8 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)4
Low-rise (< 3 floors)22
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.92 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge15%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)36%
Park perimeter1,356 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: rail, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, rail, Ellesmere Station Parking, rail, rail, 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 (46)

  • rail0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop — Ellesmere Road at East Service Road4 m
  • rail5 m
  • transit stop — Midland Avenue at Midland Station8 m
  • rail12 m
  • parking lot — Ellesmere Station Parking13 m
  • rail17 m
  • transit stop — Midland Avenue at Midland Station23 m
  • cafe — Starbucks25 m
  • parking lot27 m
  • restaurant — Mary Brown's39 m
  • transit stop — Ellesmere Road at Midland Avenue43 m
  • transit stop — Midland Avenue at Ellesmere Road46 m
  • transit stop — Ellesmere Road at East Service Road48 m
  • retail — Hair + Co Salon49 m
  • rail — Uxbridge Subdivision50 m
  • parking lot — Ellesmere Station Parking52 m
  • retail — My Mechanic Auto & Tire58 m
  • parking lot66 m
  • parking lot66 m
  • restaurant — Niji Sushi66 m
  • parking lot70 m
  • transit stop — Ellesmere Road at Midland Avenue74 m
  • retail — Midland And Ellesmere Auto83 m
  • retail — Dayton Self Storage85 m
  • parking lot89 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • rail — Uxbridge Subdivision95 m
  • transit stop — Midland Avenue at Ellesmere Road102 m
  • retail — Pay2Day105 m
  • transit stop — Ellesmere Road110 m
  • transit stop — Ellesmere Station112 m
  • transit stop — Midland Avenue113 m
  • parking lot116 m
  • parking lot126 m
  • retail — Supersuds Coin Laundry146 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • restaurant — Roll N Bowl Korean & Japanese Cuisine154 m
  • parking lot165 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • parking lot192 m
  • parking lot193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureELLESMERE YARD - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    2th
  • Edge activation
    23th
  • Connectivity
    35th
  • Amenity diversity
    33th
  • Natural comfort
    19th
  • Enclosure
    12th

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 ELLESMERE YARD - 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.
  • Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.
  • 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

  • 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.