Anglesey Boulevard Median Strip
Corridor / Linear Park, above average overall (score 40, rank ~73th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.
Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Anglesey Boulevard Median Strip scores 39.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.45 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 40 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Tradeoffs
- The park is enclosed by buildings (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 4) — frame without animation.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its corridor / linear park typology (+7 vs the median in small Corridor / Linear Park).
Typology classification
Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 6.9× a circle of equal area
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (transit_stop, school) and 7 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 41 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 23 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,644 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~70.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 6.2% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~795 m; 119 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (119.0/ha). Reading: well-shaded. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
125 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 116 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.1 m (~2 floors); 7.6 buildings per 100 m of 1,644 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.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum 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
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 (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (34)
- transit stop — Wimbleton Road6 m
- transit stop — Pinehurst Crescent6 m
- transit stop — Wimbleton Rd8 m
- transit stop — Islington Ave at Anglesey Blvd9 m
- transit stop — Pinehurst Crescent10 m
- transit stop — Anglesey Blvd at The Kingsway11 m
- transit stop — Anglesey Blvd at The Kingsway32 m
- parking lot38 m
- parking lot42 m
- school — Filipok Russian Senior School46 m
- transit stop — Anglesey Boulevard48 m
- parking lot58 m
- parking lot63 m
- parking lot65 m
- parking lot80 m
- parking lot96 m
- parking lot121 m
- parking lot122 m
- parking lot122 m
- parking lot122 m
- parking lot150 m
- retail — Park Lane Cleaners151 m
- parking lot152 m
- retail — Foodland153 m
- parking lot156 m
- retail — Inna's Coiffure Hair Salon158 m
- parking lot166 m
- retail — Carl's Framing & Art Gallery168 m
- parking lot169 m
- retail — Home Hardware175 m
- retail — Rizo Lola & Co.186 m
- parking lot187 m
- parking lot192 m
- retail — Cardella Jewellers195 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality73th
- Edge activation65th
- Connectivity87th
- Amenity diversity68th
- Natural comfort86th
- Enclosure60th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Humber MarshesWaterfront Park31
- Westview GreenbeltRavine / Naturalized Park31
- The Toronto HuntRavine / Naturalized Park33
- Public Access PropertyCorridor / Linear Park40
- Bendale ParkWaterfront Park40
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
- Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
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 Anglesey Boulevard Median Stripmatters. 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.
Data sources
- City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.