Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksNew Toronto (18)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

KEN COX COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 34, rank ~49th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

KEN COX COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 33.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 2.37 ha

Vitality Score

34/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

33.8 / 100

Citywide

49th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

33rd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

-4

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 34 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

Amenity Diversity12 · p83

-7.6

Edge Activation26 · p86

-6.0

Connectivity34 · p25

-3.1

Natural Comfort35 · p22

-2.2

Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)

+1.4

Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p53

+1.4

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

KEN COX COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (26) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (12) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

KEN COX COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (35, bottom quartile)— only 1% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (26, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

KEN COX COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.4 ha, framed by 7 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

26.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop, community, cafe) and 3 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%

34.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~612 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0

Intersections within 100 m1

Paths/walkways (50 m)2

Sidewalk segments (50 m)9

Transit stops (400 m)14

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00

Park perimeter612 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre). 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%

35.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.6% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~290 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.8/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.6%

Canopy area0.01 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)290 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon2

Tree density0.8 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)5.4

Sample points used164

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

63.7 / 100

10 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 3 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 10.8 m (~4 floors); 1.6 buildings per 100 m of 612 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m10

Buildings within 50 m10

Avg edge height10.8 m (~4 floors)

Tallest edge building24.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7

Low-rise (< 3 floors)3

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density1.63 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge70%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)46%

Park perimeter612 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (1 types · 1 records)

community centre

Nearby active-edge features (18)

community — Ken Cox Community Centre0 m
parking lot0 m
transit stop — Colonel Samuel Smith Park Drive2 m
transit stop — Colonel Samuel Park6 m
transit stop — Colonel Samuel Park24 m
cafe — Tim Hortons25 m
parking lot44 m
parking lot44 m
transit stop54 m
parking lot115 m
parking lot — Lot 5121 m
parking lot — Colonel Samuel Smith Park123 m
parking lot152 m
parking lot — Assembly Hall Parking152 m
parking lot — Lot 1157 m
parking lot182 m
parking lot184 m
parking lot191 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
49th
Edge activation
86th
Connectivity
25th
Amenity diversity
83th
Natural comfort
22th
Enclosure
53th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Pellatt ParketteParkette39
Taylor Creek ParkRavine / Naturalized Park35
Finch / Dufferin WoodlotRavine / Naturalized Park35
Weston Village ParkParkette39
Bilston Court Cul-De-SacParkette34

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
High ParkRavine / Naturalized Park47
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28

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 KEN COX COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Groundsmatters. 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.
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.