Parkettecluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksKingsway South (15)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Tom Riley Park

Parkette, above average overall (score 39, rank ~71th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

Tom Riley Park scores 39.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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.

Best for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.15 ha

Vitality Score

39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence

39.2 / 100

Citywide

72nd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Parkette

79th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Parkette (n=287)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 39 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 Diversity0 · p20

-10.0

Edge Activation33 · p88

-4.2

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Natural Comfort36 · p27

-2.1

Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p39

+1.1

Connectivity53 · p61

+0.6

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

Tom Riley Park works because its edge activation score (33) is in the top tier and its connectivity (53) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Tom Riley Park is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (33, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Tom Riley Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+8 vs the median in pocket Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (1476 m²) with strong building frontage (9.8 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

33.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 3 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%

53.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 15 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~162 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)10

Transit stops (400 m)15

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.85

Park perimeter162 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 36%

36.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~137 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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)137 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon2

Tree density2.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used12

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

60.8 / 100

16 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 16 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 9.8 buildings per 100 m of 162 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 m16

Buildings within 50 m16

Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building8.2 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)16

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density9.85 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter162 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" — 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 (19)

parking lot0 m
transit stop — Islington Avenue28 m
transit stop — Islington Avenue41 m
parking lot55 m
restaurant — Big Slice Kitchen56 m
transit stop58 m
restaurant — Papa John's63 m
retail — Montgomery Alterations & Drycleaning65 m
transit stop — Dundas Street West69 m
transit stop — Islington Ave at Dundas St W81 m
parking lot92 m
transit stop111 m
parking lot114 m
transit stop — 1300 Islington Avenue128 m
transit stop152 m
transit stop — Chestnut Hills Crescent158 m
parking lot183 m
transit stop183 m
parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
71th
Edge activation
88th
Connectivity
61th
Amenity diversity
20th
Natural comfort
27th
Enclosure
39th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park40
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park40
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park41
Pine Ridge CemeteryParkette40
Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park42

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 Tom Riley Parkmatters. 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.
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 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.