Parkettecluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Keelesdale-Eglinton West (110)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Parkette, near the bottom of the city overall (score 21, rank ~4th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 20.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.72 ha

Vitality Score

21/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence

20.9 / 100

Citywide

4th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Parkette

2nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Parkette (n=218)

Performance gap

-15

raw − expected · context confidence high

strong underperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 21 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 · p5

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p7

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Connectivity38 · p31

-2.4

Enclosure / Eyes on Park57 · p23

+0.7

Natural Comfort51 · p62

+0.1

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

City Wide Open Space works because its natural comfort score (51) is middle of the pack.

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space 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 (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

Strong underperformer relative to its cohort — raw 21 vs an expected 36 (gap -15).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (7247 m²) with strong building frontage (6.1 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 12 active uses (transit_stop) and 25 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%

38.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 4 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 59 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~521 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1

Intersections within 100 m4

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)4

Transit stops (400 m)59

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.19

Park perimeter521 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%

0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%

51.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~16.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~304 m; 24 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (24.0/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)304 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon24

Tree density24.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used51

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

56.7 / 100

32 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 32 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.0 m (~2 floors); 6.1 buildings per 100 m of 521 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m32

Buildings within 50 m32

Avg edge height5.0 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building6.9 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)32

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density6.15 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter521 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, MacTier Subdivision, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West. 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

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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (80)

transit stop — Keelesdale Road at Eglinton Avenue West0 m
transit stop — Keelesdale Road at Eglinton Avenue West5 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West21 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West25 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West29 m
rail — MacTier Subdivision30 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West39 m
transit stop — Mount Dennis46 m
transit stop50 m
transit stop — Mount Dennis50 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton54 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton56 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton56 m
rail — Weston Subdivision60 m
transit stop — Mount Dennis61 m
parking lot61 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton62 m
rail — Weston Subdivision64 m
transit stop — Mount Dennis65 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West67 m
transit stop — Mount Dennis68 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton69 m
rail — Weston Subdivision69 m
rail — Weston Subdivision74 m
rail — MacTier Subdivision75 m
transit stop — Mount Dennis Station Secondary Entrance77 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton77 m
transit stop — Mount Dennis79 m
rail88 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West89 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton91 m
rail — Weston Subdivision91 m
transit stop95 m
rail — Weston Subdivision96 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West97 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton98 m
transit stop — Eglinton Avenue at Black Creek Drive98 m
rail — Weston Subdivision109 m
parking lot110 m
rail — Weston Subdivision114 m
parking lot124 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton128 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West129 m
rail129 m
rail — MacTier Subdivision129 m
highway — Black Creek Drive133 m
transit stop — Eglinton Avenue West135 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton135 m
transit stop137 m
transit stop137 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West138 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West141 m
highway — Black Creek Drive146 m
rail149 m
highway — Black Creek Drive157 m
parking lot — Pick-up Drop-off157 m
retail — Autofix160 m
transit stop — Bay 1165 m
transit stop — Eglinton Avenue at Black Creek Drive165 m
parking lot — Pick-up Drop-off171 m
transit stop — Bay 2172 m
transit stop — Photography Drive174 m
transit stop — Bay 15179 m
retail — World Variety180 m
restaurant — The Nutmeg Spot181 m
restaurant — Huatai Restaurant181 m
restaurant — The Sandwich Shoppe182 m
retail — Tech Solutions182 m
cafe — Weston Donuts182 m
transit stop — Bay 14183 m
restaurant — The Irish Rose Pub184 m
retail — Ideal Coin Laundry184 m
retail — Destiny Salon185 m
restaurant — Dragon House Chinese Food185 m
retail — Bluekat Travels186 m
transit stop — York Avenue186 m
transit stop — Bay 3186 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton186 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton188 m
restaurant — Beiramar188 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
4th
Edge activation
5th
Connectivity
31th
Amenity diversity
7th
Natural comfort
62th
Enclosure
23th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceParkette30
Pheasant Lane Central Traffic IslandCorridor / Linear Park32
Glen Rouge CampgroundRavine / Naturalized Park20
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park20
West Highland Creek WatercourseRavine / Naturalized Park32

Most opposite parks

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

Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63

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.
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.
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

City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)
Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
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.