Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Waterfront Communities-The Island (77)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 43, rank ~84th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: connectivity.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 42.5 / 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.

Best for:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.22 ha

Vitality Score

43/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence

42.5 / 100

Citywide

84th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

77th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

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 43 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 · p19

-10.0

Connectivity24 · p12

-5.2

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park87 · p93

+3.7

Natural Comfort26 · p13

-3.5

Edge Activation60 · p98

+2.5

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 (60) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (87) is also top decile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by connectivity (24, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (60, 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

A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+6 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2152 m², paved (0% canopy), 7.7 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

60.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (restaurant, retail, transit_stop, cafe) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%

24.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 3 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~209 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1

Intersections within 100 m2

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)2

Transit stops (400 m)3

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.48

Park perimeter209 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%

26.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~23 m. Reading: water-cooled. 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)23 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used16

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

87.1 / 100

16 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (12 mid-rise, 4 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 19.3 m (~6 floors); 7.7 buildings per 100 m of 209 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 12 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m16

Buildings within 50 m16

Avg edge height19.3 m (~6 floors)

Tallest edge building31.1 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)12

Low-rise (< 3 floors)4

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density7.66 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge75%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter209 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (29)

retail — Wheel Excitement Inc.39 m
cafe — Tim Hortons58 m
restaurant — I Love Churros59 m
restaurant — Mamma Pizza60 m
transit stop — Rees Street74 m
transit stop — Rees Street79 m
restaurant — Shoeless Joe's81 m
cafe — Café Locale90 m
restaurant — Pizzaiolo98 m
restaurant — Harvey's108 m
restaurant — Swiss Chalet110 m
retail — The UPS Store118 m
restaurant — Golden Egg Restaurant121 m
restaurant — Queens Harbour126 m
cafe — Bubble Baby127 m
parking lot127 m
parking lot — Harbourfront Parking Lot P3129 m
restaurant — Indian Roti House130 m
retail — Harbour Nails136 m
retail — Value Buds138 m
retail — Rabba146 m
highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West158 m
highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West159 m
parking lot160 m
restaurant — Ice Creamonology176 m
highway — Gardiner Expressway182 m
restaurant — Wild Wing187 m
parking lot190 m
retail195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
84th
Edge activation
98th
Connectivity
12th
Amenity diversity
19th
Natural comfort
13th
Enclosure
93th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Hto Park WestCorridor / Linear Park43
Hto Park WestCorridor / Linear Park45
Wellesley - Magill ParkUrban Plaza40
Hto Park WestCorridor / Linear Park37
Lillian H. Smith ParkUrban Plaza47

Most opposite parks

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

Sir Casimir Gzowski ParkWaterfront Park33
High ParkRavine / Naturalized Park47
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park31
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27

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.

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.

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.