Urban Plazacluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Lambton Baby Point (114)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

HUMBERCREST UNITED CHURCH - Building Grounds

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 31, rank ~36th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

HUMBERCREST UNITED CHURCH - Building Grounds scores 31.1 / 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 · 0.22 ha

Vitality Score

31/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence

31.1 / 100

Citywide

36th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

18th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

Performance gap

-5

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 31 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 · p43

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p49

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Natural Comfort35 · p20

-2.3

Enclosure / Eyes on Park73 · p73

+2.3

Connectivity43 · p41

-1.3

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

HUMBERCREST UNITED CHURCH - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (73) is above average (1 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

HUMBERCREST UNITED CHURCH - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (35, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (35, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

HUMBERCREST UNITED CHURCH - 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 (73) 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 -5; cohort: pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2166 m², paved (0% canopy), 49.4 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%

43.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~190 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)9

Transit stops (400 m)10

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.10

Park perimeter190 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%

34.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~694 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)694 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon2

Tree density2.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used17

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

72.7 / 100

94 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 93 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.6 m (~2 floors); 49.4 buildings per 100 m of 190 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 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m94

Buildings within 50 m94

Avg edge height6.6 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building12.1 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)93

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density49.37 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge1%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter190 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 (29)

retail — Terra Brazil124 m
retail — Zen Den Trading Post Cannabis124 m
retail — 4Cats124 m
restaurant — Mad Mexican124 m
transit stop — Annette Street124 m
retail — Sapphire Jewellery124 m
retail — Martin’s Flowers124 m
restaurant — The Grill on Jane125 m
retail — Fiyre & Co125 m
retail — Patisserie 27126 m
cafe — Gigli Caffe129 m
transit stop — Annette Street131 m
retail — Wally's Smoke139 m
retail — Salon Moda142 m
transit stop — Jane Street143 m
retail — Anh Nguygen Salon144 m
retail145 m
retail — Panacea Massage Therapy155 m
retail — Game Set Match156 m
restaurant — Hua Hin Thai Food158 m
restaurant — Fiddler's Dell Bar & Grill158 m
retail — Baby Point Home Hardware164 m
retail — Jane Flowers169 m
retail — Paw Envy170 m
cafe — Kolo173 m
retail — Petals & Co.176 m
retail — Your Butler Cleaners177 m
retail — Instyle Kitchens & Bathrooms180 m
restaurant — Pho VP191 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
36th
Edge activation
43th
Connectivity
41th
Amenity diversity
49th
Natural comfort
20th
Enclosure
73th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Montebello Gdns Cul-De-SacUrban Plaza31
Hillingdon - Woodrow ParketteUrban Plaza32
Dunstable Cul-De-SacUrban Plaza30
Mulham Place Traffic IslandParkette30
Trudelle ParkWaterfront Park26

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
Toronto ZooWaterfront Park57

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 HUMBERCREST UNITED CHURCH - 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.

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.

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.