Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview (7)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Neighbourhood Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 23, rank ~6th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 22.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park 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:daily urban life

Area · 1.71 ha

Vitality Score

23/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence

22.6 / 100

Citywide

6th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

2nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

-15

raw − expected · context confidence high

strong underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 23 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 · p55

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p63

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park81 · p85

+3.1

Natural Comfort32 · p15

-2.7

Connectivity49 · p53

-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

City Wide Open Space works because its enclosure score (81) is above average and its amenity diversity (0) is also above-average (11 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by natural comfort (32, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (32, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

The park is enclosed by buildings (81) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

Strong underperformer relative to its cohort — raw 23 vs an expected 37 (gap -15).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.7 ha, framed by 11 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 30 active uses (restaurant, transit_stop, cafe, retail) and 11 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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%

48.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 11 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~681 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)2

Sidewalk segments (50 m)17

Transit stops (400 m)11

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.15

Park perimeter681 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% weightpartial 45%

31.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1322 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.2/ha). Reading: exposed. 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)1,322 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon2

Tree density1.2 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used118

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

80.6 / 100

35 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (11 mid-rise, 24 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 12.8 m (~4 floors); 5.1 buildings per 100 m of 681 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 11 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m35

Buildings within 50 m35

Avg edge height12.8 m (~4 floors)

Tallest edge building35.5 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)11

Low-rise (< 3 floors)24

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density5.14 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge31%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter681 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: parking_lot, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West. 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 (45)

transit stop — Wincott Drive14 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West22 m
retail — M&M Food Market23 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West26 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West27 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West27 m
retail — Expedia CruiseShipCenters29 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West34 m
transit stop — Bemersyde Drive37 m
retail41 m
parking lot41 m
retail — efx salon & spa45 m
retail — Alex Fine Cleaners46 m
restaurant — Subway46 m
restaurant — Booster Juice47 m
retail — Kanda Optician47 m
cafe — Second Cup48 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West53 m
retail — Linea Intima56 m
cafe — Timothy's56 m
parking lot58 m
retail — The Richviewer59 m
parking lot59 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West61 m
retail — Richview Cleaners62 m
retail — Richview Jewelers65 m
transit stop — 250 Wincott Dr - Richview Square Plaza (Rexall)67 m
retail — The Potty Planter71 m
retail — Richview Bakery71 m
retail — Durdur Meats71 m
restaurant — Pizza Pizza71 m
retail — Nails & Tanning72 m
retail — Zito Hair Salon72 m
restaurant — Asian Express72 m
restaurant — Tasty Grill Shawarma73 m
retail — Pet Valu73 m
retail — Baybridge by Bayshore78 m
retail — Richview Barber84 m
retail — Maxi Mart89 m
retail — Sense of Hearing95 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West99 m
parking lot112 m
parking lot140 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West174 m
transit stop — Kipling Avenue196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
6th
Edge activation
55th
Connectivity
53th
Amenity diversity
63th
Natural comfort
15th
Enclosure
85th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Spring Garden ParketteUrban Plaza32
City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza34
Rosedale Ravine LandsRavine / Naturalized Park33
The Rail GardenUrban Plaza29
Elm Ridge Drive Traffic IslandCorridor / Linear Park32

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Toronto ZooWaterfront Park57
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63

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.
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.