City Wide Open Space
Ravine / Naturalized Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 51, rank ~96th 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 50.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. 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 · 0.08 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 51 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
- This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 51 versus an expected 33 for similar parks (pocket Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine) (gap +18).
Typology classification
Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 0% canopy. Secondary read: Urban Plaza (767 m², paved (0% canopy), 36.2 buildings/100 m).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 20 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant, cafe) 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 15 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~149 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. 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: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~415 m. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies. 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
54 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 53 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.2 m (~2 floors); 36.2 buildings per 100 m of 149 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.
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 (35)
- transit stop — Coxwell Avenue23 m
- transit stop — Coxwell Avenue28 m
- transit stop — O'Connor Drive35 m
- transit stop — O'Connor Drive37 m
- retail — Shell38 m
- retail — Esso52 m
- restaurant — Mr. Sub59 m
- transit stop — O'Connor Drive60 m
- retail — Circle K62 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons63 m
- retail — the neighbourhood joint65 m
- parking lot66 m
- restaurant — Butter Chicken Roti68 m
- retail — Royal Cuts Barbershop77 m
- retail — Wayne's Supermarket79 m
- cafe — Ballissimo Loukoumades Bar83 m
- restaurant — Skara87 m
- restaurant — Eden Chinese Food89 m
- retail — Lucky Variety94 m
- retail — pulp & paperie95 m
- retail — mon K patisserie99 m
- restaurant — Free Topping Pizza105 m
- retail — Coxwell Milk Convenience110 m
- restaurant — Sushi Bay121 m
- parking lot125 m
- parking lot130 m
- parking lot131 m
- retail — What's in Fashion146 m
- retail — LCBO157 m
- transit stop — Milton Road164 m
- transit stop — Milton Road172 m
- transit stop — Hutton Avenue174 m
- transit stop — Ralston Avenue174 m
- retail — Julie Nails183 m
- restaurant — Little Coxwell Restaurant189 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality96th
- Edge activation99th
- Connectivity65th
- Amenity diversity9th
- Natural comfort19th
- Enclosure69th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Courthouse Square ParkCivic Square52
- Prescott ParketteUrban Plaza48
- Opera PlaceUrban Plaza48
- Taylor Creek ParkWaterfront Park50
- METROPOLITAN UNITED CHURCH GROUNDS - Building GroundsParkette51
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 ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
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.
- 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 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.