Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksLawrence Park North (105)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Teddington Park Road Traffic Island

Corridor / Linear Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~79th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: connectivity.

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

Teddington Park Road Traffic Island scores 40.8 / 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:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 0.14 ha

Vitality Score

41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence

40.8 / 100

Citywide

78th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

80th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Corridor / Linear Park (n=122)

Performance gap

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 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

Amenity Diversity0 · p68

-10.0

Edge Activation25 · p84

-6.3

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park76 · p79

+2.6

Connectivity47 · p49

-0.6

Natural Comfort50 · p61

+0.0

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

Teddington Park Road Traffic Island works because its edge activation score (25) is above average and its enclosure (76) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Teddington Park Road Traffic Island 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 edge activation (25, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Teddington Park Road Traffic Island sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its corridor / linear park typology (+9 vs the median in pocket Corridor / Linear Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Urban Plaza

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 4.9× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Urban Plaza (1365 m², paved (0% canopy), 14.8 buildings/100 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

25.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%

47.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~644 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7

Intersections within 100 m4

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)9

Transit stops (400 m)12

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.09

Park perimeter644 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% weightinferred 36%

50.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~16.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~583 m; 24 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (24.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%

Canopy area0.00 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)583 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon24

Tree density24.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used11

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

76.3 / 100

95 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 86 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.4 m (~2 floors); 14.8 buildings per 100 m of 644 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 m95

Buildings within 50 m95

Avg edge height7.4 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building14.5 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)9

Low-rise (< 3 floors)86

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density14.75 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge10%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter644 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 (14)

transit stop — Mount Pleasant Rd at Teddington Park Ave13 m
transit stop — Doncliffe Loop at Glen Echo Rd83 m
parking lot156 m
restaurant — Yonge Sushi165 m
retail — Sixth Sense Spa & Nail Lounge168 m
retail172 m
restaurant — PhaYao Thai175 m
restaurant — Rudy178 m
restaurant — The Belly Buster Submarines180 m
transit stop — Teddington Avenue181 m
retail — Sloan's Shoes185 m
restaurant — The Burger Cellar190 m
transit stop — Yonge St at Melrose Ave196 m
highway — Yonge Street197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
79th
Edge activation
84th
Connectivity
49th
Amenity diversity
68th
Natural comfort
61th
Enclosure
79th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

York Mills GardensUrban Plaza40
Beaumont ParkRavine / Naturalized Park40
King Georges - Keele ParketteUrban Plaza41
Old Yonge ParketteUrban Plaza41
Cruickshank ParkWaterfront Park41

Most opposite parks

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

Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
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 Teddington Park Road Traffic Islandmatters. 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.