Skip to content
Toronto Park Atlas
Bloor St E - Open Green Space — site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Rosedale-Moore Park (98)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Bloor St E - Open Green Space

Ravine / Naturalized Park, below average overall (score 30, rank ~28th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.

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

Bloor St E - Open Green Space scores 29.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. 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:escape into natureshaded summer use

Area · 0.32 ha

Vitality Score
30/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence
29.5 / 100
Citywide
28th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
29th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=200)
Performance gap
-3
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 30 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 · p10
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p16
-10.0
Natural Comfort90 · p99
+6.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p55
+1.4
Connectivity48 · p51
-0.4

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

Bloor St E - Open Green Space works because its natural comfort score (90) is one of the city's strongest (86% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

Bloor St E - Open Green Space is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (90, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Bloor St E - Open Green Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (90) significantly outpaces connectivity (48) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (64) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 86% ravine overlap, 86% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) and 9 dead/hostile uses (highway, rail). 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%
48.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 8 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~308 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)9
Transit stops (400 m)8
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.95
Park perimeter308 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 60%
90.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 86.4% estimated tree canopy; 86.4% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~192 m; 4 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (4.0/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage86.4%
Canopy area0.27 ha
Inside ravine system86.4%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)192 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon4
Tree density4.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)100.0
Sample points used22

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.1 / 100

9 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 7 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.9 m (~3 floors); 2.9 buildings per 100 m of 308 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 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m9
Buildings within 50 m9
Avg edge height7.9 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building12.8 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)7
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density2.92 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge22%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)3%
Park perimeter308 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: Bloor Street East, Bloor Street East, Bayview-Bloor Ramp, Bloor-Danforth Line, Bloor-Danforth Line. 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 (27)

  • highway — Bloor Street East15 m
  • highway — Bayview-Bloor Ramp20 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line21 m
  • highway — Bloor Street East21 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line24 m
  • highway — Drumsnab Road61 m
  • highway — Bloor Street East72 m
  • transit stop — Castle Frank Road74 m
  • highway — Castle Frank Road86 m
  • highway — Castle Frank Road88 m
  • transit stop — Castle Frank Road109 m
  • parking lot117 m
  • highway — Bloor Street East118 m
  • transit stop — Castle Frank Road124 m
  • highway — Bloor Street East156 m
  • rail — Rosedale Siding158 m
  • rail — GO Transit - Bala Subdivision162 m
  • highway — Bayview-Bloor Ramp163 m
  • transit stop — Castle Frank171 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line171 m
  • transit stop — Castle Frank171 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line171 m
  • transit stop — Castle Frank184 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line194 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line195 m
  • highway — Bloor Street East196 m
  • transit stop — Bloor Street199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureBloor St E - Open Green Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    28th
  • Edge activation
    10th
  • Connectivity
    51th
  • Amenity diversity
    16th
  • Natural comfort
    99th
  • Enclosure
    55th

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

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 35%
Overall activity
13/ 100
12.8 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
8unknown
Temporal rhythm
13unknown
Pedestrian / cycling flow
38real
Cultural significance
15unknown

Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 34.6/100; cycling/trail 57.7/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Bloor St E - Open Green 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.
  • 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.