Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Glen Sheppard Park — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (ravine-leaning)Kennedy Park (124)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Glen Sheppard Park

Parkette, below average overall (score 27, rank ~18th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: connectivity.

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

Glen Sheppard Park scores 26.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 1.00 ha

Vitality Score
27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 64%

Data Confidence
26.9 / 100
Citywide
18th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
14th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in small Parkette (n=218)
Performance gap
-9
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 27 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 · p50
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p82
-7.6
Connectivity14 · p5
-7.1
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park60 · p33
+1.0
Natural Comfort46 · p51
-0.6

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

Glen Sheppard Park works because its amenity diversity score (12) is above average.

What limits this park

Glen Sheppard Park is held back by connectivity (14, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low connectivity (14, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Glen Sheppard Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (46) significantly outpaces connectivity (14) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -9; cohort: small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (9983 m²) with strong building frontage (8.0 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 1 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% weightpartial 45%
14.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~473 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m0
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)13
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter473 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 (playground). 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%
45.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 8.6% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1201 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage8.6%
Canopy area0.09 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,201 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)42.2
Sample points used70

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
59.6 / 100

38 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 36 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 6.0 m (~2 floors); 8.0 buildings per 100 m of 473 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m38
Buildings within 50 m38
Avg edge height6.0 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building45.2 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)36
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density8.03 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge5%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter473 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

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

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (9)

  • parking lot41 m
  • transit stop — Gordonridge Place116 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • transit stop — Wolfe Avenue152 m
  • transit stop — Winter Avenue180 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • rail — Kingston Subdivision187 m
  • rail — Kingston Subdivision191 m
  • rail — Kingston Subdivision195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGlen Sheppard Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    18th
  • Edge activation
    50th
  • Connectivity
    5th
  • Amenity diversity
    82th
  • Natural comfort
    51th
  • Enclosure
    33th

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 Glen Sheppard 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.