Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Caledonia-Fairbank (109)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Corridor / Linear Park, below average overall (score 27, rank ~18th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 26.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (30). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 0.31 ha

Vitality Score

27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence

26.9 / 100

Citywide

18th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

24th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Corridor / Linear Park (n=76)

Performance gap

-6

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 27 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 · p13

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p19

-10.0

Natural Comfort22 · p1

-4.1

Border Vacuum Risk30 (risk)

+2.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p63

+1.7

Connectivity49 · p53

-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 enclosure score (67) is middle of the pack (1 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by natural comfort (22, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (30).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (22, 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.

Tradeoffs

Connectivity (49) significantly outpaces natural comfort (22) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
The park is enclosed by buildings (67) 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 -6; cohort: small Corridor / Linear Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.3× a circle of equal area

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) and 2 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%

49.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~446 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3

Intersections within 100 m10

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)8

Transit stops (400 m)14

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.67

Park perimeter446 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% weightinferred 24%

22.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1361 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)1,361 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used21

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

66.8 / 100

112 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 111 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 25.1 buildings per 100 m of 446 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.

Buildings within 25 m112

Buildings within 50 m112

Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building13.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)111

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density25.14 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge1%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter446 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

30.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Newmarket Subdivision, 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

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 (14)

rail — Newmarket Subdivision23 m
parking lot26 m
transit stop100 m
transit stop115 m
transit stop — Silverthorn Avenue170 m
retail — Rogers Supermarket174 m
cafe — Os Amigos179 m
retail — Cheque Exchange180 m
restaurant — Reggio187 m
parking lot194 m
parking lot195 m
parking lot195 m
retail — Mike's Men's Hair Styling199 m
transit stop — Silverthorn Avenue200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
18th
Edge activation
13th
Connectivity
53th
Amenity diversity
19th
Natural comfort
1th
Enclosure
63th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Bathurst - Wilson ParketteParkette20
Scarlett - St. Clair ParketteParkette20
Winston Churchill Rd Traffic IslandParkette30
Public Access PropertyCorridor / Linear Park30
Willowdale CemeteryUrban Plaza24

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Toronto ZooWaterfront Park57
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49

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.
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

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.