Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
SECORD COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Taylor-Massey (61)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

SECORD COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 47, rank ~92th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Azizul Kabir via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

SECORD COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 47 / 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:daily urban life

Area · 1.98 ha

Vitality Score
47/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
47.0 / 100
Citywide
92nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
90th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
+10
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Street context

Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Top-down view

cached 5/9/2026

City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.

SECORD COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

Explain this score

Where did the 47 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
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Edge Activation38 · p90
-3.1
Connectivity65 · p82
+2.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park72 · p73
+2.2
Natural Comfort42 · p41
-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

SECORD COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (38) is in the top tier and its connectivity (65) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

SECORD COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds doesn't have a clear weakness — every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (38, top decile).

Jacobs reading

SECORD COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Strong physical conditions (score 47) but weak observed activity signals (9) — 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

  • A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+10 vs the median in medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.0 ha, framed by 3 mid-rise vs 3 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
37.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (community, transit_stop) and 1 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%
64.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 23 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 44 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~573 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)23
Transit stops (400 m)44
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.57
Park perimeter573 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%
41.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.1% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~621 m; 20 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (10.1/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)621 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon20
Tree density10.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used137

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
72.2 / 100

149 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 143 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 7.0 m (~2 floors); 26.0 buildings per 100 m of 573 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m149
Buildings within 50 m149
Avg edge height7.0 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building64.1 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)143
Towers (≥ 13 floors)3
Frontage density25.99 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge2%
Tower share of edge2%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter573 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" — 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • community centre

Nearby active-edge features (14)

  • community — Secord Community Centre0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop4 m
  • transit stop20 m
  • transit stop32 m
  • transit stop — Secord Avenue72 m
  • transit stop105 m
  • retail — B & D Variety Store106 m
  • transit stop — Main Street132 m
  • retail — Main Auto Service136 m
  • transit stop — Main Street151 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • transit stop — Goodwood Park Crescent189 m
  • retail — Vic's Milk198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSECORD COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    92th
  • Edge activation
    90th
  • Connectivity
    82th
  • Amenity diversity
    71th
  • Natural comfort
    41th
  • Enclosure
    73th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only — no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

medium-confidence match
Visitor signal score
36/ 100
35.5 / 100

p31 citywide · p37 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)17
Density / ha34
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×0.85
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
102
total reviews
Photos uploaded
4
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match medium (0.75 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 50%
Overall activity
9/ 100
8.7 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
13real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
27unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of SECORD 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.