Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Brookhaven-Amesbury (30)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Amesbury Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~77th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Amesbury Park scores 40.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (72). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:organised sportactive recreation

Area · 12.10 ha

Vitality Score

41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

40.5 / 100

Citywide

77th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Athletic / Recreation Park

37th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in Athletic / Recreation Park (n=85)

Performance gap

-1

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 41 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 · p57

-12.5

Connectivity70 · p90

+4.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park78 · p81

+2.8

Border Vacuum Risk72 (risk)

-2.2

Amenity Diversity40 · p99

-2.0

Natural Comfort53 · p65

+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

Amesbury Park works because its amenity diversity score (40) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (70) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Amesbury Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 72.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (40, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Amesbury Park 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 (78) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.
High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (72) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

Citywide rank is high (77th) but typology rank is more modest (37th) — the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 60% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, sports_field, tennis). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (12.1 ha, framed by 13 mid-rise vs 10 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (transit_stop, cafe, retail) and 10 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%

70.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 19 mapped paths/walkways and 43 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 26 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 9 estimated access points across ~1,791 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9

Intersections within 100 m9

Paths/walkways (50 m)19

Sidewalk segments (50 m)43

Transit stops (400 m)26

Estimated entrances9

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.50

Park perimeter1,791 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

39.8 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, community_centre, playground, sports_field, tennis). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%

52.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~8.9% effective canopy (4.5% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 17.6% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~612 m; 154 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (12.7/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage4.5%

Canopy area0.55 ha

Inside ravine system17.6%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)612 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon154

Tree density12.7 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)58.3

Sample points used199

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

78.3 / 100

143 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (13 mid-rise, 120 low-rise, 10 tower); avg edge height 9.3 m (~3 floors); 8.0 buildings per 100 m of 1,791 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 10 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 13 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m143

Buildings within 50 m143

Avg edge height9.3 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building67.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)13

Low-rise (< 3 floors)120

Towers (≥ 13 floors)10

Frontage density7.99 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge9%

Tower share of edge7%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,791 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

72.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (5 types · 6 records)

basketball
community centre
playground
sports field
tennis

Nearby active-edge features (40)

transit stop — Culford Road0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
transit stop — Lawrence Avenue West south side stop3 m
retail4 m
transit stop — Lawrence Ave at Pimilico Rd5 m
transit stop — 150 Culford Road5 m
transit stop15 m
transit stop — Culford Rd at Lawrence Avenue W16 m
parking lot21 m
transit stop — Culford Road27 m
transit stop — Lawrence Ave at Pimilico Rd28 m
parking lot30 m
parking lot32 m
parking lot70 m
transit stop — Lawrence Avenue West north side stop70 m
parking lot78 m
retail — Gaby's Hair Salon and Barbershop88 m
parking lot88 m
parking lot92 m
transit stop — Keele Street at Colville Road93 m
cafe — Sonia Food Cafe98 m
parking lot104 m
parking lot110 m
parking lot112 m
transit stop — Keele Street at Colville Road115 m
parking lot119 m
retail121 m
transit stop — Ridge Point Crescent139 m
parking lot140 m
transit stop — George Anderson Drive160 m
parking lot177 m
parking lot180 m
parking lot182 m
parking lot184 m
parking lot189 m
restaurant — Popeyes194 m
cafe — Tim Hortons196 m
restaurant — Hakka No. 1196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
77th
Edge activation
57th
Connectivity
90th
Amenity diversity
99th
Natural comfort
65th
Enclosure
81th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Dovercourt ParkNeighbourhood Park48
Cedarvale ParkRavine / Naturalized Park45
Sherwood ParkRavine / Naturalized Park44
Wychwood Barns ParkNeighbourhood Park48
Coronation Park - YorkRavine / Naturalized Park38

Most opposite parks

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

Simcoe ParkTower-Community Green Space51
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21

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 Amesbury Parkmatters. 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.
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.