Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
City Wide Open Space — site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (ravine-leaning)Centennial Scarborough (133)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Other, near the bottom of the city overall (score 19, rank ~2th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: enclosure.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 18.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:varies — see metrics

Area · 0.53 ha

Vitality Score
19/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
18.6 / 100
Citywide
2nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
17th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
24
median in small Other (n=41)
Performance gap
-5
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 19 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 · p18
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p27
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity38 · p31
-2.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park38 · p8
-1.2
Natural Comfort48 · p56
-0.3

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 doesn't have a clear standout dimension — the strongest measured signal is natural comfort, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by enclosure (38, bottom quartile)— no mid-rise frontage to provide eyes on the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (38, 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.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -5; cohort: small Other).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (0.5 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 1.6/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (transit_stop, cafe, retail) and 16 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
38.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~386 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)10
Transit stops (400 m)10
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.26
Park perimeter386 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% weightmeasured 75%
47.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 8.8% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~602 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage8.8%
Canopy area0.05 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)602 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)43.1
Sample points used34

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
38.0 / 100

6 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 6 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.2 m (~1 floors); 1.6 buildings per 100 m of 386 m perimeter — moderate 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 m6
Buildings within 50 m6
Avg edge height4.2 m (~1 floors)
Tallest edge building4.6 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)6
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.55 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)48%
Park perimeter386 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Kingston Road, parking_lot, Kingston Road, Kingston Road, Kingston Road, Kingston Road, Kingston Road. 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 (65)

  • highway — Kingston Road17 m
  • highway — Kingston Road22 m
  • highway — Kingston Road22 m
  • retail29 m
  • highway — Kingston Road30 m
  • highway — Kingston Road30 m
  • parking lot36 m
  • highway — Kingston Road41 m
  • highway — Kingston Road51 m
  • highway — Highway 401 Collector54 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons67 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • transit stop — Port Union Road75 m
  • retail — Circle K77 m
  • transit stop — Kingston EB @ Port Union79 m
  • parking lot83 m
  • transit stop — Kingston WB @ Sheppard85 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • transit stop — Sheppard Avenue East90 m
  • highway — Kingston Road90 m
  • highway — Kingston Road92 m
  • highway — Kingston Road94 m
  • highway — Highway 401 Express97 m
  • transit stop — Kingston Road98 m
  • transit stop — Kingston Road100 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • retail — Rogers101 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • retail — Luv Dem Nails103 m
  • highway — Highway 401 Express106 m
  • retail — Lamana's Italian Bakery106 m
  • retail — Emerald Cleaners108 m
  • highway — Kingston Road110 m
  • retail — Hair Wave112 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • highway — Highway 401 Express114 m
  • retail — Pet Valu121 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • highway — Kingston Road129 m
  • highway — Highway 401 Express133 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • highway — Highway 401 Collector138 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • cafe — Starbucks148 m
  • retail — Sherwin-Williams149 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • highway — Highway 401 Collector154 m
  • highway — Kingston Road154 m
  • restaurant — Mucho Burrito156 m
  • restaurant — Subway157 m
  • highway — Kingston Road158 m
  • restaurant — Eggsmart162 m
  • retail — The Hearing Clinic168 m
  • highway — Kingston Road169 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • retail — Images Salon171 m
  • retail — Spyder Vapes175 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • restaurant — Popeyes184 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • highway — Kingston Road191 m
  • parking lot193 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • restaurant — Wimpy's Diner198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    2th
  • Edge activation
    18th
  • Connectivity
    31th
  • Amenity diversity
    27th
  • Natural comfort
    56th
  • Enclosure
    8th

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

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 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.