Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)High Park-Swansea (87)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Coe Hill Drive Parkette

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 30, rank ~31th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Coe Hill Drive Parkette scores 30.1 / 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 · 0.05 ha

Vitality Score

30/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence

30.1 / 100

Citywide

31st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

13th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

Performance gap

-6

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 30 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 · p38

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p45

-10.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park82 · p87

+3.2

Natural Comfort37 · p30

-1.9

Connectivity56 · p66

+1.2

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

Coe Hill Drive Parkette works because its enclosure score (82) is in the top tier and its connectivity (56) is also above-average (5 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Coe Hill Drive Parkette is held back by natural comfort (37, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (48).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (82, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Coe Hill Drive Parkette 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 (82) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -6; cohort: pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 540 m², paved (0% canopy), 29.3 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 5 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%

55.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~116 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6

Intersections within 100 m10

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)16

Transit stops (400 m)10

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter5.18

Park perimeter116 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%

37.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.1% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~183 m; 3 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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)183 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon3

Tree density3.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used9

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

82.0 / 100

34 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 29 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.8 m (~2 floors); 29.3 buildings per 100 m of 116 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 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m34

Buildings within 50 m34

Avg edge height6.8 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building12.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)5

Low-rise (< 3 floors)29

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density29.34 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge15%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter116 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 (16)

transit stop — Windermere Ave at Coe Hill Dr3 m
parking lot7 m
transit stop — Budgell Terrace10 m
parking lot34 m
parking lot35 m
parking lot44 m
parking lot78 m
parking lot125 m
parking lot155 m
transit stop — Windermere Ave at Saint Olaves Rd162 m
parking lot163 m
transit stop — 80 Coe Hill Dr168 m
transit stop — Windermere Ave at Saint Olaves Rd170 m
transit stop — 89 Windermere Ave177 m
transit stop — 60 Southport St187 m
parking lot189 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
31th
Edge activation
38th
Connectivity
66th
Amenity diversity
45th
Natural comfort
30th
Enclosure
87th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

JOHN MCKENZIE HOUSE - Building GroundsTower-Community Green Space35
Kildonan ParkUrban Plaza35
Roxborough - Cluny Traffic IslandUrban Plaza35
Oates ParkUrban Plaza34
Doris - Norton ParkTower-Community Green Space36

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25

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 Coe Hill Drive 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.
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.