Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksMount Olive-Silverstone-Jamestown (2)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

ELMBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

ELMBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds scores 35.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 3.88 ha

Vitality Score

35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

35.3 / 100

Citywide

56th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

41st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

-2

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 Activation15 · p73

-8.9

Amenity Diversity12 · p80

-7.6

Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)

+2.6

Natural Comfort40 · p37

-1.5

Connectivity54 · p62

+0.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park49 · p12

-0.1

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

ELMBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (12) is above average and its edge activation (15) is also above-average.

What limits this park

ELMBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds is held back by enclosure (49, bottom quartile)— no mid-rise frontage to provide eyes on the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (49, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

ELMBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 3.9 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

14.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (transit_stop) and 6 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%

54.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 32 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~799 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)2

Sidewalk segments (50 m)19

Transit stops (400 m)32

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.38

Park perimeter799 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%

39.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.0% effective canopy (0.4% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 9.9% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~828 m; 11 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.8/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.4%

Canopy area0.02 ha

Inside ravine system9.9%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)828 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon11

Tree density2.8 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)31.7

Sample points used243

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

49.0 / 100

20 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 20 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.5 m (~2 floors); 2.5 buildings per 100 m of 799 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m20

Buildings within 50 m20

Avg edge height5.5 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building7.6 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)20

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density2.50 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)17%

Park perimeter799 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (1 types · 1 records)

community centre

Nearby active-edge features (26)

parking lot0 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Road at Finch Avenue West5 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Road at Finch Avenue West South Side26 m
transit stop — Finch Avenue at Martin Grove Road West Side39 m
transit stop — Finch Avenue at Martin Grove Road46 m
parking lot47 m
transit stop47 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Rd at Rampart Rd50 m
transit stop — Martin Grove55 m
transit stop57 m
parking lot57 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Road at Finch Avenue West North Side70 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Rd at Rampart Rd78 m
parking lot83 m
parking lot88 m
parking lot92 m
transit stop — Martin Grove106 m
parking lot112 m
rail122 m
parking lot137 m
transit stop — Kendleton Drive144 m
parking lot155 m
parking lot163 m
parking lot163 m
retail — Bestco Food Mart198 m
rail199 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
73th
Connectivity
62th
Amenity diversity
80th
Natural comfort
37th
Enclosure
12th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Seneca Village ParkTower-Community Green Space36
CORNELL JUNIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL - Building GroundsNeighbourhood Park36
Mary Harker ParkNeighbourhood Park39
Plunkett ParkParkette41
Horton ParkParkette35

Most opposite parks

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

Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza60

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 ELMBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL - 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.
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.
Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.

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.