Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
City Wide Open Space — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Rouge (131)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~66th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 37.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.09 ha

Vitality Score
38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence
37.6 / 100
Citywide
66th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
73rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in pocket Parkette (n=287)
Performance gap
+6
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 38 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 · p1
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p2
-10.0
Natural Comfort77 · p90
+4.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park82 · p86
+3.2
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Connectivity51 · p58
+0.3

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 natural comfort score (77) is in the top tier and its enclosure (82) is also top quartile (71% tree canopy provides real shade).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, 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

  • Natural comfort (77) significantly outpaces connectivity (51) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (82) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+6 vs the median in pocket Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (946 m²) with strong building frontage (6.8 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 18 active uses (retail, restaurant, cafe, transit_stop) and 13 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%
51.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~205 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)12
Transit stops (400 m)9
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.95
Park perimeter205 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%
77.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 71.4% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~582 m. Reading: well-shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage71.4%
Canopy area0.07 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)582 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)86.3
Sample points used7

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
81.6 / 100

14 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 5 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.9 m (~3 floors); 6.8 buildings per 100 m of 205 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m14
Buildings within 50 m14
Avg edge height8.9 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building12.5 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)9
Low-rise (< 3 floors)5
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density6.82 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge64%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter205 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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 (52)

  • restaurant — Popeyes9 m
  • parking lot16 m
  • retail — Spyder Vapes19 m
  • retail — Images Salon25 m
  • retail — The Hearing Clinic29 m
  • transit stop — Rylander Boulevard at Kingston Road34 m
  • parking lot36 m
  • restaurant — Eggsmart36 m
  • restaurant — Mucho Burrito37 m
  • cafe — Starbucks41 m
  • restaurant — Subway43 m
  • retail — Sherwin-Williams52 m
  • restaurant — Wimpy's Diner60 m
  • parking lot61 m
  • parking lot64 m
  • retail — Classic Fireplace and BBQ Store66 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • restaurant — Port Union Seafood74 m
  • highway — Kingston Road75 m
  • parking lot76 m
  • highway — Kingston Road79 m
  • retail — Pet Valu86 m
  • retail — Hair Wave87 m
  • retail — Lamana's Italian Bakery88 m
  • highway — Kingston Road88 m
  • retail — Rogers88 m
  • retail — Dollarama90 m
  • highway — Kingston Road92 m
  • highway — Kingston Road93 m
  • parking lot95 m
  • highway — Kingston Road96 m
  • retail — Emerald Cleaners100 m
  • retail — Luv Dem Nails107 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • parking lot119 m
  • parking lot120 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • highway — Kingston Road126 m
  • parking lot129 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • highway — Kingston Road141 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • highway — Kingston Road155 m
  • retail158 m
  • retail — A Touch of Beauty Hair Salon173 m
  • retail — Freedom Mobile175 m
  • retail — Optical 20/20182 m
  • highway — Highway 401 Collector186 m
  • retail — Expedia CruiseShipCentres187 m
  • parking lot188 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    66th
  • Edge activation
    1th
  • Connectivity
    58th
  • Amenity diversity
    2th
  • Natural comfort
    90th
  • Enclosure
    86th

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 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.

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.
  • 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 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.