Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Rosedale-Moore Park (98)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Roxborough - Cluny Traffic Island

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Roxborough - Cluny Traffic Island scores 35.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.02 ha

Vitality Score

35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence

35.4 / 100

Citywide

56th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

41st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

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 35 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 · p61

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p68

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park86 · p92

+3.6

Natural Comfort36 · p27

-2.1

Connectivity57 · p69

+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

Roxborough - Cluny Traffic Island works because its enclosure score (86) is in the top tier and its connectivity (57) is also above-average (7 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Roxborough - Cluny Traffic Island is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (86, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Roxborough - Cluny Traffic Island 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 (86) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 182 m², paved (0% canopy), 42.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) 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%

57.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~65 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)6

Transit stops (400 m)16

Estimated entrances3

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter5.00

Park perimeter65 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%

36.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.1% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~508 m; 3 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.0/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)508 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon3

Tree density3.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used6

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

85.8 / 100

42 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 35 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.4 m (~2 floors); 42.0 buildings per 100 m of 65 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 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m42

Buildings within 50 m42

Avg edge height7.4 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building10.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7

Low-rise (< 3 floors)35

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density42.00 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge17%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter65 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 (5)

transit stop — Crescent Rd at Cluny Dr114 m
transit stop — Crescent Rd at Cluny Dr120 m
transit stop — Crescent Rd at Rosedale Rd171 m
parking lot187 m
transit stop — Crescent Rd at Rosedale Rd195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
56th
Edge activation
61th
Connectivity
69th
Amenity diversity
68th
Natural comfort
27th
Enclosure
92th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Dacre - Valleymede Traffic IslandRavine / Naturalized Park35
Rosedale Ravine LandsRavine / Naturalized Park35
Coe Hill Drive ParketteUrban Plaza30
JOHN MCKENZIE HOUSE - Building GroundsTower-Community Green Space35
Wychwood ParketteUrban Plaza36

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28

Human activity signals

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 35%

Overall activity

8/ 100

8.0 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

8unknown

Temporal rhythm

13unknown

Pedestrian / cycling flow

14real

Cultural significance

15unknown

Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 7.1/100; cycling/trail 11.8/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Roxborough - Cluny 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.
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.

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.