Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Rosedale-Moore Park (98)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Loring - Wyle Parkette

Parkette, in the top tier overall (score 44, rank ~87th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: connectivity.

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

Loring - Wyle Parkette scores 43.9 / 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 · 0.07 ha

Vitality Score

44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence

43.9 / 100

Citywide

87th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Parkette

90th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Parkette (n=287)

Performance gap

+13

raw − expected · context confidence high

strong overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 44 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 Diversity0 · p65

-10.0

Edge Activation17 · p76

-8.3

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Natural Comfort76 · p89

+3.9

Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p94

+3.8

Connectivity47 · p49

-0.6

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

Loring - Wyle Parkette works because its enclosure score (88) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (76) is also top quartile (13 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Loring - Wyle Parkette doesn't have a clear weakness — every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (88, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Loring - Wyle Parkette sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

Natural comfort (76) significantly outpaces connectivity (47) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
The park is enclosed by buildings (88) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 44 versus an expected 31 for similar parks (pocket Parkette) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (730 m²) with strong building frontage (60.7 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

17.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 1 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%

46.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~120 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m2

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)12

Transit stops (400 m)13

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.33

Park perimeter120 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%

76.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 85.7% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~418 m; 7 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.0/ha). Reading: well-shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage85.7%

Canopy area0.06 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)418 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon7

Tree density7.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)59.2

Sample points used14

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

87.9 / 100

73 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (13 mid-rise, 60 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.6 m (~3 floors); 60.7 buildings per 100 m of 120 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 13 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m73

Buildings within 50 m73

Avg edge height7.6 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building16.3 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)13

Low-rise (< 3 floors)60

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density60.68 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge18%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter120 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (6)

transit stop — Mount Pleasant Rd at St Clair Ave E1 m
transit stop — Mount Pleasant Road West Side59 m
parking lot64 m
transit stop — Clifton Road120 m
transit stop — Heath Street East153 m
transit stop — Heath Street East173 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
87th
Edge activation
76th
Connectivity
49th
Amenity diversity
65th
Natural comfort
89th
Enclosure
94th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

West Highland Creek WatercourseWaterfront Park40
Burnside Dr BoulevardCorridor / Linear Park41
City Wide Open SpaceParkette42
Denfield ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Stonehouse Burying GroundParkette44

Most opposite parks

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

Trca Lands ( 58)Waterfront Park18
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68

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 Loring - Wyle 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.

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.

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.