Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)South Riverdale (70)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Other, below average overall (score 27, rank ~20th 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 27.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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:varies — see metrics

Area · 0.93 ha

Vitality Score

27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence

27.3 / 100

Citywide

19th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Other

57th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Other (n=41)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 27 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 Activation6 · p65

-11.1

Amenity Diversity0 · p62

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Natural Comfort25 · p9

-3.7

Connectivity36 · p28

-2.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p41

+1.1

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 (6) is middle of the pack and its amenity diversity (0) is also above-average.

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by natural comfort (25, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (25, 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.

Tradeoffs

The park is enclosed by buildings (61) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 6) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

Although its citywide rank is low (19th), it ranks highly among similar others (57th) — strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%

Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (0.9 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 2.6/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

5.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 5 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%

36.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 5 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~385 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m1

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)5

Transit stops (400 m)9

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.04

Park perimeter385 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 30%

25.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~383 m. Reading: exposed. 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)383 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used65

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

61.3 / 100

10 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 7 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.5 m (~3 floors); 2.6 buildings per 100 m of 385 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m10

Buildings within 50 m10

Avg edge height7.5 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building20.1 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3

Low-rise (< 3 floors)7

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density2.60 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge30%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)14%

Park perimeter385 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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

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 (15)

transit stop — Commissioners St at Bouchette St29 m
parking lot40 m
retail — AJ Self Storage44 m
transit stop — Commissioners St at Bouchette St57 m
transit stop — Commissioners St at Saulter St S66 m
parking lot68 m
parking lot85 m
parking lot88 m
parking lot89 m
transit stop — Commissioners St at Saulter St S90 m
parking lot112 m
parking lot134 m
transit stop — Saulter Street139 m
parking lot140 m
parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
20th
Edge activation
65th
Connectivity
28th
Amenity diversity
62th
Natural comfort
9th
Enclosure
41th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park27
Public Access PropertyCorridor / Linear Park27
Amberdale RavineRavine / Naturalized Park27
Spenvalley ParkRavine / Naturalized Park27
North Agincourt ParkCorridor / Linear Park27

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Sir Winston Churchill ParkRavine / Naturalized Park69
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66

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.

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.