Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Rexlington Park — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Rexdale-Kipling (4)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Rexlington Park

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 33, rank ~45th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Rexlington Park scores 33 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (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 urban life

Area · 2.50 ha

Vitality Score
33/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
33.0 / 100
Citywide
45th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
30th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
-4
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 33 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 · p37
-12.5
Amenity Diversity21 · p89
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Natural Comfort35 · p24
-2.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park60 · p36
+1.0
Connectivity49 · p54
-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

Rexlington Park works because its amenity diversity score (21) is in the top tier.

What limits this park

Rexlington Park is held back by natural comfort (35, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (21, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Rexlington Park is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (60) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.5 ha, framed by 2 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) 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%
49.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 7 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~657 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)7
Transit stops (400 m)10
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.46
Park perimeter657 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field). 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% weightpartial 45%
35.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~405 m; 5 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)405 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon5
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used174

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
60.3 / 100

20 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 18 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.2 m (~2 floors); 3.0 buildings per 100 m of 657 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 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m20
Buildings within 50 m20
Avg edge height7.2 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building16.0 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)18
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density3.04 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge10%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter657 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 (2 types · 2 records)

  • playground
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (51)

  • parking lot35 m
  • parking lot39 m
  • parking lot62 m
  • parking lot62 m
  • parking lot96 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • transit stop108 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • parking lot116 m
  • parking lot117 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • parking lot131 m
  • parking lot136 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • parking lot157 m
  • parking lot157 m
  • transit stop — Bergamot Avenue159 m
  • transit stop — Leduc Drive160 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • parking lot168 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • restaurant — Faley Restaurant185 m
  • retail — Empire State Dry Cleaners185 m
  • retail — All Sun Wireless186 m
  • retail — UR Wireless186 m
  • transit stop — Bergamot Avenue187 m
  • retail — Alp Wireless187 m
  • retail — Eazy Wireless189 m
  • retail — Wireless Giant190 m
  • retail — Dostana Grocers190 m
  • retail — Freedom Mobile191 m
  • restaurant — Pizza Pros191 m
  • retail — JP Wireless191 m
  • retail — Blue Tech192 m
  • retail — Rexdale Asian Supermarket192 m
  • retail — Al Amira Islamic Fashion193 m
  • retail — Advance Wireless194 m
  • retail — Amin Foodmart & Halal Meat195 m
  • restaurant — Baghlan Kebob & Bakery195 m
  • retail — Sunny Wireless195 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • retail — Chatr196 m
  • transit stop196 m
  • restaurant — Hakka Cottage197 m
  • retail — Computers197 m
  • retail — Nasa Electronics198 m
  • retail — Premier Barber & Beauty Salon199 m
  • parking lot199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureRexlington Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    45th
  • Edge activation
    37th
  • Connectivity
    54th
  • Amenity diversity
    89th
  • Natural comfort
    24th
  • Enclosure
    36th

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 Rexlington Parkmatters. 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.

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.