City Wide Open Space
Other, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~55th 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 35 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. 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.
Area · 5.51 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 55%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 35 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its other typology (+8 vs the median in large Other).
- Although its citywide rank is low (54th), it ranks highly among similar others (82nd) — strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.
Typology classification
Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (5.5 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 0.5/100m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 12 active uses (restaurant, transit_stop, cafe, retail) and 3 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 11 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,022 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~799 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
5 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 3 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 9.0 m (~3 floors); 0.5 buildings per 100 m of 1,022 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: rail, 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
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 (27)
- restaurant — Daimaru Shabu Shabu (Scarborough)0 m
- cafe — Evana Patisserie & Cafe0 m
- cafe — Kanae Cafe0 m
- restaurant — La Pho Vietnamese Restaurant0 m
- restaurant — PanPan Noodle Bar0 m
- restaurant — Lucky Ace BBQ0 m
- cafe — Matcha Yuzu0 m
- rail0 m
- parking lot0 m
- transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Silver Star Blvd29 m
- transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Silver Star Blvd34 m
- retail — Clinical Wellness – Massage Therapy45 m
- restaurant — chako46 m
- restaurant — Magic Noodle80 m
- parking lot97 m
- parking lot124 m
- parking lot129 m
- parking lot129 m
- parking lot135 m
- parking lot144 m
- parking lot147 m
- restaurant — Sing Viet Thai171 m
- parking lot176 m
- retail — Golden Hair & Nails184 m
- restaurant — Hey Noodles (Scarborough)189 m
- parking lot189 m
- restaurant — Pizza Hut Express196 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality55th
- Edge activation94th
- Connectivity47th
- Amenity diversity61th
- Natural comfort4th
- Enclosure11th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceOther38
- North York Hydro Green SpaceOther36
- City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park38
- Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceParkette39
- MORNINGSIDE YARD - Building GroundsNeighbourhood Park35
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- High ParkRavine / Naturalized Park47
- Ramsden ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
- Lower Don ParklandsRavine / Naturalized Park33
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park39
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.
- Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.
- 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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.