Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Neilson Park - Scarborough, site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Malvern (132)confidence moderate

Neilson Park - Scarborough

Other, above average overall (score 43, rank ~81th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Neilson Park - Scarborough scores 42.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 9.33 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldSkatepark
Facilities
WashroomPicnic area
Vitality Score
43/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
42.7 / 100
Citywide
81st
of all 3,788 parks
Among Other
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
28
median in large Other (n=50)
Performance gap
+15
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 43 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 · p18
-12.5
Connectivity78 · p98
+5.5
Amenity Diversity40 · p92
-2.0
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p47
+1.2
Natural Comfort44 · p45
-0.8

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

Neilson Park - Scarborough works because its connectivity score (78) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (40) is also top decile (17 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 13 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Neilson Park - Scarborough 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 (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (78, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Neilson Park - Scarborough sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (78) significantly outpaces natural comfort (44): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (62) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 43 versus an expected 28 for similar parks (large Other) (gap +15).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (9.3 ha, 5 amenity types, frontage 10.4/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop) and 7 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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%
77.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 27 mapped paths/walkways and 72 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 12 estimated access points across ~1,322 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m16
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)27
Sidewalk segments (50 m)72
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances12
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.21
Park perimeter1,322 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
39.8 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (picnic, playground, skatepark, sports_field, 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% weightmeasured 75%
44.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 6.2% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~568 m; 70 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.5/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage6.2%
Canopy area0.58 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)568 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon70
Tree density7.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)33.7
Sample points used208

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
61.7 / 100

138 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 136 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 6.1 m (~2 floors); 10.4 buildings per 100 m of 1,322 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m138
Buildings within 50 m138
Avg edge height6.1 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building51.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)136
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density10.44 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,322 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (5 types · 10 records)

  • picnic
  • playground
  • skatepark
  • sports field
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (24)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Crow Trail3 m
  • transit stop: Neilson Park Drive9 m
  • transit stop: Crow Trail29 m
  • parking lot81 m
  • parking lot87 m
  • rail: Belleville Subdivision96 m
  • rail: Belleville Subdivision100 m
  • rail: Belleville Subdivision104 m
  • parking lot129 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue East131 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue East156 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • parking lot168 m
  • transit stop: Crow Trail at McGinty Pl176 m
  • rail: Belleville Subdivision177 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • rail: Belleville Subdivision185 m
  • transit stop: Neilson Road at Finch Avenue East185 m
  • transit stop: Hupfield Trail at Horseshoe Cres186 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue at Blackbird Gate192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureNeilson Park - Scarborough
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
    81th
  • Edge activation
    18th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    92th
  • Natural comfort
    45th
  • Enclosure
    47th

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 Neilson Park - Scarboroughmatters. 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: 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.