Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
ParketteType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)St Lawrence-East Bayfront-The Islands

ONE YONGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds

Parkette, near the bottom of the city overall (score 26, rank ~14th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of ONE YONGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

ONE YONGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 25.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (72). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.53 ha

What's here

Facilities
Community centre

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 19 m away. None of the 3 nearby lots records whether it has 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
26/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
25.5 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
14th
of all 3,752 parks
Among Parkette
8th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=223)
Performance gap
-12
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest 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.

Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.

Explain this score

Where did the 26 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 · p62
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p65
-7.6
Natural Comfort26 · p13
-3.6
Border Vacuum Risk72 (risk)
-2.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p66
+1.6
Connectivity49 · p57
-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

ONE YONGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (66) is middle of the pack and its amenity diversity (12) is also above-average (9 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

ONE YONGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (26, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (72).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (26, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

ONE YONGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -12; cohort: small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (5348 m²) with strong building frontage (4.0 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (retail, restaurant, cafe, community, transit_stop) and 12 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
49.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 35 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~298 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2
Intersections within 100 m9
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)6
Transit stops (400 m)35
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.67
Park perimeter298 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% weightinferred 30%
25.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~209 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)209 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used36

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.4 / 100

12 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 34.2 m (~11 floors); 4.0 buildings per 100 m of 298 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m12
Buildings within 50 m12
Avg edge height34.2 m (~11 floors)
Tallest edge building216.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)9
Low-rise (< 3 floors)2
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density4.03 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge75%
Tower share of edge8%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter298 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
72.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, 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 (1 types · 2 records)

  • community centre

Nearby active-edge features (72)

  • community: One Yonge Community Recreation Centre0 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West10 m
  • parking lot19 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West50 m
  • parking lot53 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West53 m
  • transit stop: Yonge St / Queens Quay East North60 m
  • highway: Yonge Street62 m
  • highway: Harbour Street67 m
  • highway: Yonge Street71 m
  • highway: Gardiner Expressway72 m
  • highway: Yonge Street80 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West81 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West89 m
  • cafe: Espresso House91 m
  • retail: Platis 1 Hour Custom Cleaners96 m
  • retail: Hair Story96 m
  • restaurant: Subway96 m
  • restaurant: Kibo Sushi House97 m
  • restaurant: Mr. Pizza97 m
  • restaurant: Mama Lee's Korean Kitchen98 m
  • highway: Harbour Street107 m
  • transit stop: Lake Shore Boulevard112 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West113 m
  • transit stop: Freeland Street114 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West114 m
  • highway: Yonge Street115 m
  • highway: Gardiner Expressway116 m
  • highway: Yonge Street117 m
  • retail: INS Market118 m
  • restaurant: Firkin on Harbour119 m
  • retail: Harbourfront Cannabis119 m
  • transit stop: Yonge Street120 m
  • restaurant: Freshii121 m
  • retail: Fashion Cleaners126 m
  • transit stop: Freeland Street134 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West142 m
  • retail: Nails Station Nails & Spa143 m
  • highway: Yonge Street149 m
  • restaurant: Butcher Chef158 m
  • restaurant: NBA Courtside Restaurant158 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor160 m
  • highway: Harbour Street160 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor162 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West164 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor166 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor166 m
  • retail: Kitchen Table168 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor175 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor176 m
  • retail: Art Hub 27177 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor178 m
  • restaurant: Oyshi Sushi179 m
  • retail: Farm Boy180 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor181 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor181 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor181 m
  • highway: Yonge Street184 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor184 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor184 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor185 m
  • retail: HarbourView Convenience186 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • highway: Yonge Street188 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor190 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor191 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor192 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor193 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor193 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor194 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor194 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureONE YONGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds
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
    14th
  • Edge activation
    62th
  • Connectivity
    57th
  • Amenity diversity
    65th
  • Natural comfort
    13th
  • Enclosure
    66th

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 ONE YONGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.