City Wide Open Space
Parkette, above average overall (score 42, rank ~83th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.
Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
City Wide Open Space scores 42.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.43 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 42 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+6 vs the median in small Parkette).
Typology classification
Classified as Parkette: small (4251 m²) with strong building frontage (5.6 per 100 m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 5 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 34 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~342 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~32.9% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 47 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (47.0/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
19 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 15 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.1 m (~2 floors); 5.6 buildings per 100 m of 342 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum 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
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 (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (39)
- parking lot45 m
- retail46 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West47 m
- transit stop — Lawrence Av W, North Entrance53 m
- highway — Allen Road60 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West62 m
- transit stop — Lawrence Av W, South Entrance62 m
- retail — Gateway Newstands65 m
- transit stop73 m
- parking lot74 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West Station81 m
- highway — Allen Road82 m
- transit stop — Shermount Avenue84 m
- highway — Allen Road84 m
- transit stop — Shermount Avenue84 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West Station86 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West Station95 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West99 m
- highway — Allen Road101 m
- highway — Allen Road105 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West Station105 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West Station118 m
- highway — Allen Road118 m
- rail — Line 1 Yonge-University122 m
- transit stop — Lawrence West124 m
- rail — Line 1 Yonge-University128 m
- transit stop128 m
- parking lot135 m
- parking lot140 m
- parking lot150 m
- parking lot153 m
- parking lot156 m
- parking lot161 m
- parking lot172 m
- parking lot184 m
- parking lot185 m
- parking lot193 m
- parking lot196 m
- parking lot197 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality83th
- Edge activation86th
- Connectivity63th
- Amenity diversity8th
- Natural comfort70th
- Enclosure68th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Holy Blossom Memorial ParkCivic Square43
- St. Andrews Park - North YorkRavine / Naturalized Park41
- CLIFFWOOD MANOR - T.C.H. - Building GroundsNeighbourhood Park40
- Beaumont ParkRavine / Naturalized Park40
- Newton ParketteRavine / Naturalized Park40
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
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 City Wide Open Spacematters. 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.
Data sources
- City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.