Skip to content
Toronto Park Atlas
Participate
HIGH PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)High Park-Swansea (87)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

HIGH PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 32, rank ~39th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

HIGH PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds scores 31.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.14 ha

Vitality Score
32/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
31.7 / 100
Citywide
39th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Urban Plaza
21st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)
Performance gap
-5
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 32 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 · p48
-10.0
Edge Activation17 · p77
-8.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park91 · p97
+4.1
Natural Comfort35 · p19
-2.3
Connectivity40 · p34
-2.1
Border Vacuum Risk48 (risk)
+0.2

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

HIGH PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (91) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (17) is also top quartile (31 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

HIGH PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (35, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (48).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (91, top decile).

Jacobs reading

HIGH PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds 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 (91) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1365 m², paved (0% canopy), 57.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
17.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 26 active uses (transit_stop, retail, cafe, restaurant) and 8 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%
39.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 5 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~149 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)6
Transit stops (400 m)5
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.68
Park perimeter149 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%
34.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~725 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/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)725 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used16

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
90.9 / 100

85 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (31 mid-rise, 54 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.4 m (~3 floors); 57.0 buildings per 100 m of 149 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 31 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m85
Buildings within 50 m85
Avg edge height8.4 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building14.2 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)31
Low-rise (< 3 floors)54
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density57.04 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge37%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter149 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
48.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (53)

  • parking lot4 m
  • parking lot4 m
  • parking lot20 m
  • parking lot23 m
  • retail — Sobeys Urban Fresh24 m
  • restaurant — Café Polonez24 m
  • retail — Brite Star24 m
  • retail — Ecotique25 m
  • cafe — Ed's Real Scoop28 m
  • retail — Scooter Girl Toys31 m
  • retail — A Vital Touch Massage Therapy31 m
  • retail — Vagabonds and Gentlemen35 m
  • retail — Jac's Milk35 m
  • retail — The Source Bulk Foods39 m
  • restaurant — Souvlike49 m
  • parking lot53 m
  • retail — Kim Natural Food54 m
  • retail — Hot Oven Bakery55 m
  • cafe — Sava Crepes & Coffee59 m
  • parking lot60 m
  • restaurant — The Friendly Thai65 m
  • transit stop — High Park Boulevard68 m
  • retail — Maple Produce70 m
  • retail — Fur Loft76 m
  • retail — Dear Grain79 m
  • parking lot79 m
  • restaurant — Aris Place81 m
  • retail — Savile Studio & Market86 m
  • retail — Brodawka & Friends87 m
  • retail — Pretty 1 Nails Spa90 m
  • restaurant — The Ace90 m
  • transit stop — Fermanagh Avenue92 m
  • parking lot94 m
  • retail — Moist95 m
  • restaurant — Nepal India Curry House101 m
  • restaurant — Chopin106 m
  • retail — Muttonhead112 m
  • retail — Evergreen Natural Foods118 m
  • restaurant — Gabby's122 m
  • retail — Blitz Facial Bar129 m
  • restaurant — Kami Sushi136 m
  • retail — MyOlive141 m
  • retail — Tsering's Beauty Spa147 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • parking lot157 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • retail — Shagri-La Fruit Market174 m
  • restaurant — Sangria Lounge180 m
  • transit stop — Garden Avenue180 m
  • retail — Ko Fruit Market186 m
  • retail — Polimex Travel191 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • cafe — Café Russo197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHIGH PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    39th
  • Edge activation
    77th
  • Connectivity
    34th
  • Amenity diversity
    48th
  • Natural comfort
    19th
  • Enclosure
    97th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Most opposite parks

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

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 HIGH PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY - 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.

Rate this park on as many dimensions as you have an opinion about. 1 = not at all · 5 = strongly. Skip the ones you don't feel sure about. Aggregated only — no comments stored at the row level.

feels socially active
feels comfortable
feels safe
feels connected
feels welcoming
feels ecological / natural
feels good for lingering
feels family-friendly
feels culturally important

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.