Glasgow Parkette
Urban Plaza, one of the city's strongest overall (score 53, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: amenity diversity.
Photo by Michael M via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Glasgow Parkette scores 53.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. 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.
Area · 0.00 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 54%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Street context
Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Top-down view
City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.
City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer
Explain this score
Where did the 53 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
Tradeoffs
- Strong physical conditions (score 53) but weak observed activity signals (8) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.
Performance in context
- This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 53 versus an expected 36 for similar parks (pocket Urban Plaza) (gap +17).
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 47 m², paved (0% canopy), 61.0 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 26 active uses (restaurant, retail) and 2 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 11 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~31 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. 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 requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence — read with caution.
Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
61 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (18 mid-rise, 41 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 10.6 m (~4 floors); 61.0 buildings per 100 m of 31 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 18 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.
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 (80)
- retail — J Hair61 m
- retail — Nail Diary Studio61 m
- retail — Reiwatakiya62 m
- retail — Han Bingo62 m
- restaurant — Kokumi Mini Hot Pot64 m
- restaurant — A1 Stone Pot64 m
- retail — In Fashion64 m
- retail — XOXO Tea65 m
- retail — Play De Record65 m
- retail — Collective66 m
- restaurant — Jian Bing Club67 m
- restaurant — Crimson Teas68 m
- retail — Gao Jun Chinese Arts & Crafts Center70 m
- restaurant — Spice & Aroma70 m
- parking lot72 m
- retail — Yogo Yugurt73 m
- restaurant — Kung Fu Duck75 m
- restaurant — Anh Dao75 m
- restaurant — Sizzler Kabab78 m
- restaurant — Mother's Dumplings79 m
- restaurant — Tasty's Restaurant & Catering79 m
- parking lot81 m
- retail — Lucky's Trading Co. Ltd.84 m
- retail — 180° Smoke Vape Store85 m
- retail — Tankx E-bike89 m
- restaurant — Korean Grillhouse93 m
- restaurant — Grossman's Tavern96 m
- restaurant — Qin's Garden100 m
- retail — Cozy Grotto103 m
- retail — Furonto Impex106 m
- retail — Cotton Best107 m
- retail — Maga T-shirt Warehouse107 m
- restaurant — Hungking108 m
- restaurant — Song Tea109 m
- restaurant — Canton Chili110 m
- retail — Sahar110 m
- restaurant — Bank Bao111 m
- restaurant — Xiaobiandan112 m
- restaurant — Chongqing Chicken Hot Pot112 m
- retail — JJ international113 m
- retail — Super Vape113 m
- retail — Emmo113 m
- retail — Daniel's Art Supplies113 m
- restaurant — Flaming Noodles114 m
- retail — Toronto Hair Care114 m
- restaurant — Thai Country Kitchen115 m
- restaurant — Pizza Nova115 m
- cafe — CoCo Fresh Tea & Juice117 m
- restaurant — New Ho King117 m
- restaurant — A Sezchuan Restaurant117 m
- parking lot117 m
- retail — Elsa Fashions121 m
- restaurant — Red Lounge121 m
- retail — House of Mush!122 m
- restaurant — Yin Ji Chang Fen123 m
- transit stop — College Street123 m
- restaurant — Panera Bread123 m
- retail — Tech Source123 m
- restaurant — Popeyes124 m
- retail — Gotcha125 m
- retail — Gwartzman127 m
- restaurant — Krispy Kreme128 m
- community — YSM Evergreen Centre129 m
- restaurant — Taco Bell129 m
- retail — Shawarma Max131 m
- parking lot131 m
- retail — Creeps132 m
- retail — A&C Games133 m
- retail — Net Plaza135 m
- restaurant — Simmer Huang136 m
- transit stop — Nassau Street136 m
- restaurant — GoGrill136 m
- restaurant — Burger King138 m
- restaurant — Ramen Station138 m
- restaurant — Subway138 m
- parking lot140 m
- restaurant — Tahini's142 m
- cafe — Honeymoon Dessert142 m
- restaurant — Fortune-King Hotpot142 m
- restaurant — ChiChop x norigo143 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality98th
- Edge activation99th
- Connectivity54th
- Amenity diversity34th
- Natural comfort60th
- Enclosure99th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Spadina Quay WetlandsUrban Plaza50
- City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza50
- Paul Garfinkel ParketteUrban Plaza54
- Shaw St Traffic Median SouthCorridor / Linear Park52
- Lillian H. Smith ParkUrban Plaza47
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Visitor signals
Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only — no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.
p58 citywide · p53 within Urban Plaza
Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
Human activity signals
Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.
Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places.
Does this score feel accurate?
Your read of Glasgow 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.
What would improve this park?
Generated from the weakest measured dimensions — a starting point, not a prescription.
- 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.
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.