Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
The Gore, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood ParkType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Fort York-Liberty Village

The Gore

Neighbourhood Park, below average overall (score 28, rank ~22th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

No photograph yet. If you have one of The Gore, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

The Gore scores 28 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 2.60 ha

Getting around

Paths

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

1 flight of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. 2 of 9 nearby lots reporting 6 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
28/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
28.0 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
22nd
of all 3,753 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
6th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
40
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=357)
Performance gap
-12
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.

Near the park

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

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 · p17
-12.5
Amenity Diversity3 · p51
-9.3
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity73 · p95
+4.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park65 · p61
+1.5
Natural Comfort42 · p39
-1.2

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

The Gore works because its connectivity score (73) is in the top tier and its enclosure (65) is also above-average (13 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

The Gore 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 (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (73, top decile).

Jacobs reading

The Gore sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (73) significantly outpaces natural comfort (42): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (65) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • 28 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort: raw 28 vs an expected 40 (gap -12).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.6 ha, framed by 47 mid-rise vs 28 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 19 active uses (transit_stop, cafe, restaurant, retail) and 15 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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%
72.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 5 mapped paths/walkways and 40 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 5 streetcar or LRT stops, 4 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~889 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m15
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)5
Sidewalk segments (50 m)40
Transit stops (400 m)9 (0 subway/GO, 5 streetcar/LRT, 4 bus)
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.69
Park perimeter889 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
3.3 / 100

No amenities recorded. 3 public artworks near the park add a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
42.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~6.5% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~308 m; 24 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (9.2/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)308 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon24
Tree density9.2 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used183

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.7 / 100

81 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (47 mid-rise, 6 low-rise, 28 tower); avg edge height 47.3 m (~16 floors); 9.1 buildings per 100 m of 889 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 28 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 47 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m81
Buildings within 50 m81
Avg edge height47.3 m (~16 floors)
Tallest edge building120.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)47
Low-rise (< 3 floors)6
Towers (≥ 13 floors)28
Frontage density9.11 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge58%
Tower share of edge35%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter889 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lot 859, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West. 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (50)

  • transit stop0 m
  • parking lot: Lot 8590 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue1 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street5 m
  • transit stop: Fort York Boulevard6 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West7 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West8 m
  • transit stop: Fort York Boulevard10 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West13 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West14 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West14 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West16 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West16 m
  • transit stop18 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street28 m
  • restaurant: Fort York Pizzeria30 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West34 m
  • parking lot39 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West41 m
  • retail: Parisco Market45 m
  • transit stop: Princes' Gates Loop48 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street50 m
  • transit stop: Fleet Street50 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West52 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue58 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue58 m
  • cafe: Parisco Cafe66 m
  • parking lot67 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue83 m
  • transit stop: Canada Blvd at Princes' Blvd83 m
  • transit stop: Strachan Avenue83 m
  • parking lot89 m
  • transit stop: Bastion Street100 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West101 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West106 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • transit stop: Bastion Street128 m
  • highway: Gardiner Expressway141 m
  • highway: Gardiner Expressway145 m
  • retail: Floral & Decor152 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West157 m
  • retail: Navs Grocery158 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West159 m
  • parking lot175 m
  • parking lot175 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West192 m
  • retail: Classy Dry Cleaners197 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureThe Gore
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
    17th
  • Connectivity
    95th
  • Amenity diversity
    51th
  • Natural comfort
    39th
  • Enclosure
    61th

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 The Gore 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.
  • 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: 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.