Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
City Wide Open Space, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Bay Street Corridor (76)confidence moderate

City Wide Open Space

Urban Plaza, one of the city's strongest overall (score 55, rank ~97th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 54.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: amenity diversity (21). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.17 ha

What's here

Facilities
Picnic areaPublic art
Vitality Score
55/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
54.8 / 100
Citywide
97th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
95th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=360)
Performance gap
+17
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 55 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
Amenity Diversity21 · p68
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Edge Activation62 · p98
+2.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park77 · p80
+2.7
Connectivity56 · p69
+1.2
Natural Comfort50 · p56
+0.0

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 edge activation score (62) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (77) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (62, top decile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 55 versus an expected 38 for similar parks (pocket Urban Plaza) (gap +17).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1688 m², paved (0% canopy), 27.8 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
61.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 21 active uses (restaurant, retail, transit_stop, cafe) and 2 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

20% weightmeasured 85%
55.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 35 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~187 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)12
Transit stops (400 m)35
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.14
Park perimeter187 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (art, picnic). 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 15%
50.0 / 100

Natural Comfort requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used14

Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
76.5 / 100

52 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (22 mid-rise, 15 low-rise, 15 tower); avg edge height 34.5 m (~12 floors); 27.8 buildings per 100 m of 187 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 15 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 22 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m52
Buildings within 50 m52
Avg edge height34.5 m (~12 floors)
Tallest edge building180.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)22
Low-rise (< 3 floors)15
Towers (≥ 13 floors)15
Frontage density27.82 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge42%
Tower share of edge29%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter187 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 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" 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 (2 types · 2 records)

  • art
  • picnic

Nearby active-edge features (75)

  • transit stop: St. Joseph Street0 m
  • parking lot6 m
  • transit stop: St. Joseph Street24 m
  • cafe: Second Cup31 m
  • retail: 7-Eleven31 m
  • retail: Hair District31 m
  • restaurant: Sol Pizza49 m
  • restaurant: Petit Potato50 m
  • restaurant: Tokyo Sushi61 m
  • retail: Bay Street Clinic of Electrolysis And Skincare63 m
  • restaurant: Petit Potato63 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Nova64 m
  • retail: Pets66 m
  • retail: Hasty Market68 m
  • restaurant: Super Chicken68 m
  • retail: Flowers on Bay72 m
  • restaurant: Holychoco Toronto79 m
  • retail: Telus81 m
  • retail: Binns Kitchen + Bath Design82 m
  • retail: HM Dry Cleaner84 m
  • parking lot85 m
  • retail: Suzuki Shiatsu88 m
  • restaurant: Firkin on Bay Street97 m
  • restaurant: The Foxes Den101 m
  • retail104 m
  • cafe: Kelly's Cafe113 m
  • restaurant: Rolltation116 m
  • parking lot123 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons131 m
  • retail: New Wave Travel144 m
  • restaurant: Freshii150 m
  • retail: Ralph's Barber Shop152 m
  • parking lot153 m
  • cafe: Togo cafe156 m
  • parking lot157 m
  • restaurant: ramen RAIJIN159 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • transit stop: Bay Street163 m
  • restaurant: Subway163 m
  • retail: The Cutting Room164 m
  • restaurant: Ali Baba's165 m
  • retail: Maison Akari165 m
  • retail: Robert Gage Hair Salon165 m
  • retail: Rapunzel Hair166 m
  • retail: Coaté nails168 m
  • cafe: City Bakery & Cafe169 m
  • retail: Shoe Therapy Quality Shoe Repair169 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • retail: Tailspin Dog Spa170 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • retail: ASP Security Services172 m
  • restaurant: Sushi on bay172 m
  • parking lot173 m
  • parking lot176 m
  • parking lot176 m
  • retail: Ralph’s Barber Shop176 m
  • transit stop: Bay Street177 m
  • retail: Lu Dream Spa178 m
  • retail: Reflex Copy & Digital Printing178 m
  • retail: Platis Cleaners179 m
  • restaurant: Lao Lao Bar179 m
  • restaurant: Bar Volo180 m
  • restaurant: Avelo181 m
  • retail: Eleven182 m
  • retail: Five Condominiums184 m
  • cafe: Nabulu Coffee188 m
  • transit stop: Wellesley Street West190 m
  • retail: My Touch Beauty Spa & Salon191 m
  • parking lot194 m
  • retail: Bruno Malfara Hair Studio196 m
  • restaurant: Ethiopian House Restaurant196 m
  • parking lot197 m
  • retail: Zazo Hair Studio199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space
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
    97th
  • Edge activation
    98th
  • Connectivity
    69th
  • Amenity diversity
    68th
  • Natural comfort
    56th
  • Enclosure
    80th

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 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.

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.

  • Diversify what people can do in the park (playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden): even small additions raise this score.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.