Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Hillmount Parkette, site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Yorkdale-Glen Park (31)confidence moderate

Hillmount Parkette

Parkette, above average overall (score 44, rank ~83th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

Hillmount Parkette scores 43.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.09 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Vitality Score
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
43.6 / 100
Citywide
83rd
of all 3,788 parks
Among Parkette
87th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in pocket Parkette (n=296)
Performance gap
+13
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 44 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 Diversity12 · p56
-7.6
Edge Activation33 · p88
-4.2
Natural Comfort66 · p82
+2.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p59
+1.4
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Connectivity51 · p61
+0.2

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

Hillmount Parkette works because its edge activation score (33) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (66) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Hillmount Parkette's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 36.

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

Hillmount Parkette 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 44 versus an expected 31 for similar parks (pocket Parkette) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (892 m²) with strong building frontage (45.1 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
33.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop, 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%
51.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 3 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~122 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)3
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.46
Park perimeter122 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (playground). 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% weightpartial 48%
65.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 33.3% estimated tree canopy; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.0/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage33.3%
Canopy area0.03 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 polygon8
Tree density8.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)91.8
Sample points used15

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.3 / 100

55 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 55 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.2 m (~2 floors); 45.1 buildings per 100 m of 122 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 m55
Buildings within 50 m55
Avg edge height5.2 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building7.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)55
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density45.10 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter122 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (1 types · 2 records)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (47)

  • parking lot15 m
  • parking lot21 m
  • parking lot48 m
  • retail: Rooney's Tire & Auto Centre49 m
  • retail: Cars Performance 160 m
  • retail: Yorkdale Certified Auto Service65 m
  • retail: Forest Hill Auto Body72 m
  • retail: The White Room91 m
  • retail: Brazykuts Barbershop95 m
  • retail: Terrain Flowers98 m
  • transit stop99 m
  • retail102 m
  • parking lot106 m
  • retail: Active Green + Ross107 m
  • retail: V&D Cannabis109 m
  • transit stop: Glencairn Avenue110 m
  • restaurant: Darosa110 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • retail: IGO Optical115 m
  • retail: Loki Hair Studio117 m
  • retail: Flowers by Lucy118 m
  • parking lot118 m
  • transit stop: Glencairn Ave at Dufferin St119 m
  • restaurant: Beautiful City Restaurant120 m
  • parking lot121 m
  • restaurant: Esto Es Colombia122 m
  • retail: Standard Auto Glass122 m
  • retail: Enco Auto Trim124 m
  • retail: 2 Star Cleaners125 m
  • retail: Dufferin Laundry128 m
  • retail: Neighbours Coffee142 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • retail: The Fireplace Company146 m
  • transit stop: Glencairn Ave at Dufferin St148 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • cafe: Tony's Espresso Bar155 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • transit stop: Glencairn Avenue167 m
  • retail: The Meat Store171 m
  • parking lot174 m
  • retail: Market Balkan182 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • retail: Benjamin Moore193 m
  • retail: Quality Picture Frame195 m
  • retail: Ave 22 Off The Rack200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHillmount Parkette
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
    83th
  • Edge activation
    88th
  • Connectivity
    61th
  • Amenity diversity
    56th
  • Natural comfort
    82th
  • Enclosure
    59th

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 Hillmount Parkettematters. 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.

  • 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.
  • 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

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.