Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Playter Estates-Danforth (67)confidence moderate

Logan Green Field

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 47, rank ~90th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Logan Green Field scores 47.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (19.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.09 ha

What's here

Recreation

Garden

Facilities

Drinking waterBenches

Vitality Score

47/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence

47.4 / 100

Citywide

90th

of all 3,788 parks

Among Urban Plaza

84th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=360)

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.

Loading map…

Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

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

Edge Activation19 · p78

-7.7

Amenity Diversity27 · p77

-4.5

Connectivity73 · p94

+4.5

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park84 · p90

+3.4

Natural Comfort36 · p25

-2.1

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

Logan Green Field works because its connectivity score (73) is in the top tier and its enclosure (84) is also top decile (19 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 13 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Logan Green Field is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

Logan Green Field 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 (36): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
The park is enclosed by buildings (84) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 19): frame without animation.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+10 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 866 m², paved (0% canopy), 63.9 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

19.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 30 active uses (retail, restaurant, cafe) and 8 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%

72.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 8 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~121 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m13

Paths/walkways (50 m)8

Sidewalk segments (50 m)13

Transit stops (400 m)19

Estimated entrances3

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.32

Park perimeter121 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 (bench, drinking_water, garden). 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% weightinferred 36%

35.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~972 m; 4 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (4.0/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)972 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon4

Tree density4.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0

Sample points used17

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

84.2 / 100

77 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 71 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.0 m (~2 floors); 63.9 buildings per 100 m of 121 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m77

Buildings within 50 m77

Avg edge height7.0 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building10.4 m

Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)6

Low-rise (< 3 floors)71

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density63.88 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge8%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter121 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" 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 · 7 records)

bench
drinking water
garden

Nearby active-edge features (80)

parking lot21 m
retail: Lord Byron Men’s Hairstyling36 m
restaurant: Alexandros47 m
parking lot55 m
retail: Skyway Tours Limited59 m
restaurant: Estiatorio Soulas60 m
restaurant: Casa Manila60 m
cafe: Red Rocket Coffee60 m
retail: Jade Thread and Wax Bar60 m
restaurant: The Friendly Greek61 m
retail: blo61 m
restaurant: Christina’s61 m
restaurant: Kervan Kebab62 m
highway: Danforth Avenue75 m
highway: Danforth Avenue76 m
cafe: One Gram By Primo80 m
highway: Danforth Avenue80 m
highway: Danforth Avenue81 m
parking lot81 m
restaurant: The Ballyhoo Public House83 m
retail85 m
retail: Little Bird Salon88 m
highway: Danforth Avenue90 m
retail: Fruitland Market90 m
retail91 m
restaurant: El Charro92 m
restaurant: Mocha Mocha92 m
restaurant: bb.q Chicken93 m
restaurant: The Burger's Priest93 m
retail: Athens Pastries93 m
restaurant: VIP Billiards & Lounge93 m
retail: Danforth Barber Shop94 m
restaurant: Koh Samiji94 m
retail: Vaffi Salon & Aesthetics94 m
restaurant: Mezes96 m
restaurant: Mary Brown's96 m
retail: iQLiving99 m
retail: Lucky Spot100 m
cafe: 521 Cafe & Bar102 m
highway: Danforth Avenue104 m
retail: easyfinancial104 m
restaurant: Tacos Moras105 m
retail: Moss106 m
retail: Rowe Farms108 m
retail: Sophia's Lingerie & Swimwear109 m
restaurant: Menali111 m
retail: Re-Reading113 m
restaurant: Casa Sushi114 m
retail115 m
retail: HearingLife115 m
restaurant: Komi Banh Mi Bar117 m
cafe: Canela118 m
restaurant: The Fox & Fiddle119 m
restaurant: Pizzeria Libretto120 m
restaurant: Sambal120 m
restaurant: Monkey Sushi123 m
restaurant: Mezes126 m
restaurant: Lumi Shawarma Bar / Satori Sandwich Bar127 m
restaurant: Yalla Paramount127 m
retail: Cellphone & Tech Hub131 m
highway: Danforth Avenue132 m
cafe: Gong Cha134 m
restaurant: Ramen Buta-Nibo136 m
restaurant: Wanas Shawarma137 m
transit stop: Carlaw Avenue140 m
restaurant: Sinaloa Factory141 m
restaurant: Messini142 m
cafe: Tim Hortons148 m
restaurant: Rivals Sports Pub148 m
retail: Beardy Cards148 m
transit stop: Carlaw Avenue150 m
highway: Danforth Avenue151 m
restaurant: Ala Antioch153 m
retail: Healthy Planet157 m
highway: Danforth Avenue160 m
restaurant: Kalyvia161 m
retail: Baz & Billie166 m
restaurant: Katsu Sushi166 m
retail: Micro Technics SMP168 m
restaurant: Tapp’s Restaurant & Bar168 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

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
90th
Edge activation
78th
Connectivity
94th
Amenity diversity
77th
Natural comfort
25th
Enclosure
90th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Salem ParketteUrban Plaza41
Amsterdam SquareCivic Square48
Westmoreland Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza44
SCADDING COURT COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building GroundsParkette41
Jay Macpherson GreenUrban Plaza45

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26

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 Logan Green Fieldmatters. 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.

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

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.