Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Kennedy Park (124)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

DON MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, below average overall (score 29, rank ~27th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

DON MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 29.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (3). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 2.88 ha

Vitality Score

29/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

29.2 / 100

Citywide

27th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

13th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

-8

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 29 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 Activation3 · p65

-11.8

Amenity Diversity12 · p83

-7.6

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Connectivity63 · p78

+2.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park68 · p65

+1.8

Natural Comfort45 · p48

-0.8

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

DON MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (12) is above average and its connectivity (63) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

DON MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building Grounds's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 100.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (12, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

DON MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - 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 (68) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 3) — frame without animation.
High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -8; cohort: medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.9 ha, framed by 9 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

3.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 18 active uses (transit_stop) and 9 dead/hostile uses (rail, highway, 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%

62.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 18 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 18 street intersections within 100 m; 38 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~993 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6

Intersections within 100 m18

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)18

Transit stops (400 m)38

Estimated entrances1

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.60

Park perimeter993 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%

44.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 7.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~814 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.7/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 coverage7.0%

Canopy area0.20 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)814 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon5

Tree density1.7 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)36.5

Sample points used158

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

68.1 / 100

72 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 63 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.3 m (~2 floors); 7.2 buildings per 100 m of 993 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 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m72

Buildings within 50 m72

Avg edge height6.3 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building26.6 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)9

Low-rise (< 3 floors)63

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density7.25 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge13%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter993 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Eglinton Avenue East, Eglinton Avenue East, 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 (58)

rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth0 m
rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
transit stop — GO Station Entrance3 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East37 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station Bus bay 1745 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station Bus bay 1546 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station Bus bay 1646 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station Bus bay 1846 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East49 m
rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth63 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station68 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station73 m
transit stop — Kennedy75 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station82 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station Bus Bay 1484 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station86 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East87 m
transit stop92 m
transit stop92 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station93 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East95 m
transit stop — Kennedy97 m
transit stop — Kennedy97 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station Drop-off Area99 m
transit stop — Kennedy100 m
transit stop — Kennedy101 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station101 m
transit stop — Kennedy station Bus bay 13105 m
parking lot107 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station109 m
parking lot110 m
transit stop — Kennedy Station124 m
transit stop — Kennedy station bay 12125 m
parking lot125 m
rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth137 m
parking lot138 m
rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth138 m
transit stop141 m
retail — Kids World147 m
transit stop — Kennedy station bus bay 11150 m
restaurant — Thai Take Out & Catering160 m
restaurant — Pizza Pizza171 m
restaurant — Caribbean Cuisine178 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East183 m
rail — Uxbridge Subdivision183 m
transit stop185 m
retail — Home Essentials187 m
rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth191 m
rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth191 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East191 m
rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth191 m
rail — Line 2 Bloor-Danforth191 m
transit stop — Eglinton Ave E at Midland Ave194 m
transit stop — Passenger Pick Up and Drop Off195 m
parking lot197 m
parking lot199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
27th
Edge activation
65th
Connectivity
78th
Amenity diversity
83th
Natural comfort
48th
Enclosure
65th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Prince Charles ParkNeighbourhood Park38
ADAM BECK COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building GroundsNeighbourhood Park38
Phil Givens ParkParkette39
Shepton Way ParkParkette37
Birchcrest ParkParkette37

Most opposite parks

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

Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Simcoe ParkTower-Community Green Space51
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza57

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 DON MONTGOMERY COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - 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.
Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

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.