Skip to content
Toronto Park Atlas
Grange Park — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Kensington-Chinatown (78)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Grange Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 60, rank ~100th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Silvana Klaric Boricic via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Grange Park scores 59.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (28.4). 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 · 1.83 ha

Vitality Score
60/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
59.7 / 100
Citywide
100th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
+22
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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

Street context

Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Top-down view

cached 5/9/2026

City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.

Grange Park — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

Explain this score

Where did the 60 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
Connectivity80 · p99
+6.0
Amenity Diversity28 · p95
-4.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park90 · p96
+4.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Edge Activation56 · p97
+1.5
Natural Comfort42 · 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

Grange Park works because its connectivity score (80) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (56) is also top decile (32 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 22 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Grange Park doesn't have a clear weakness — every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (80, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (80) significantly outpaces natural comfort (42) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • 7 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy — passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
  • Strong physical conditions (score 60) but weak observed activity signals (8) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.
  • High connectivity (80) coexists with little programming evidence — easy to reach, but no recurring civic life detected.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 60 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +22).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.8 ha, framed by 52 mid-rise vs 7 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
56.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 24 active uses (restaurant, retail, cafe, community) and 3 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%
80.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 36 mapped paths/walkways and 25 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 22 street intersections within 100 m; 32 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~725 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m11
Intersections within 100 m22
Paths/walkways (50 m)36
Sidewalk segments (50 m)25
Transit stops (400 m)32
Estimated entrances8
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.52
Park perimeter725 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area, playground, washroom). 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% weightinferred 30%
41.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~9.5% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 25 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (13.6/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon25
Tree density13.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used129

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
90.0 / 100

84 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (52 mid-rise, 25 low-rise, 7 tower); avg edge height 17.5 m (~6 floors); 11.6 buildings per 100 m of 725 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 7 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 52 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m84
Buildings within 50 m84
Avg edge height17.5 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building68.1 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)52
Low-rise (< 3 floors)25
Towers (≥ 13 floors)7
Frontage density11.58 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge62%
Tower share of edge8%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter725 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 (3 types · 3 records)

  • dog area
  • playground
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • community — Toronto Chinese Baptist Church Senior Citizen Centre31 m
  • retail — June Hairdresser On Fire36 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • parking lot53 m
  • retail — Cheers Smoke Shop54 m
  • cafe — Thor Espresso54 m
  • retail — Carolyn McAuley Hair Studio55 m
  • restaurant — McDonald's78 m
  • cafe — Coffee Exchange80 m
  • restaurant — Kezy Döner81 m
  • restaurant — Wafflian82 m
  • cafe — Ka-Nom83 m
  • restaurant — Manpuku83 m
  • restaurant — Village by the Grange84 m
  • restaurant — La Sani Grill85 m
  • restaurant — The Bowl Korean Food85 m
  • restaurant — Karine's86 m
  • retail — Grange Green Farms88 m
  • cafe — Fruiteao91 m
  • restaurant — Sushi Cafe Bon Gung92 m
  • parking lot93 m
  • restaurant — Popeyes94 m
  • restaurant — Pho 36994 m
  • retail — OCAD U Copy & Print Services94 m
  • restaurant — Jaffna Street Food96 m
  • restaurant — Thai Bright98 m
  • retail — Umbra100 m
  • restaurant — Tasty Chinese Food101 m
  • restaurant — Black Mill Tea103 m
  • retail — Grange Lottery & News104 m
  • restaurant — Nai Nai104 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • restaurant — The Fresh Italian Eatery106 m
  • restaurant — Eats Manilla107 m
  • retail — Jerk King109 m
  • retail — Tibetan Jewelry115 m
  • transit stop — Beverley Street115 m
  • transit stop — Stephanie Street116 m
  • transit stop — Beverley Street116 m
  • retail — Lucky Moose Food Mart116 m
  • transit stop — McCaul Street118 m
  • community — Dorothy H. Hoover Library120 m
  • restaurant — Yakiniku Legend120 m
  • retail — Pat's Barber Shop120 m
  • restaurant — Top Bistro121 m
  • retail — GT E-Bike122 m
  • cafe — Tuck Shop Provisions123 m
  • cafe124 m
  • retail — Get Me Fly125 m
  • retail — Ye Perfect Nail & Spa127 m
  • restaurant — DZO129 m
  • retail — Village Custom Cleaners129 m
  • retail — Wizard Mart130 m
  • retail — 車子130 m
  • retail — Queen Dry Cleaners130 m
  • restaurant — Pizzaiolo130 m
  • retail — Perfect X Hair130 m
  • transit stop — McCaul Street132 m
  • restaurant — Village Idiot Pub132 m
  • retail — Canada Robotix132 m
  • retail — Star Vape133 m
  • restaurant — Oh My Gyro!133 m
  • retail — Perfect Threading & Beauty Salon133 m
  • retail — E's House134 m
  • retail — i8Yokocho135 m
  • restaurant — Chengdu Street Food139 m
  • retail — The Tec Fixer139 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • cafe — The Library Specialty Coffee142 m
  • retail — Emy's145 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • restaurant — Gallery Sushi146 m
  • restaurant — Gallery Sushi146 m
  • retail — Gardenview Convenience146 m
  • retail — Opteaq Eyecare148 m
  • cafe — Nord Lyon Cafe149 m
  • retail — Tribal Rhythm149 m
  • retail — New You Spa149 m
  • retail — BMV Books149 m
  • restaurant — German Doner Kebab149 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGrange Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    100th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    99th
  • Amenity diversity
    95th
  • Natural comfort
    41th
  • Enclosure
    96th

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

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 65%
Overall activity
8/ 100
7.7 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
11real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
22real

Activity reading: 171 public mentions. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places, wikipedia.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Grange 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.

  • 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.