Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Old East York (58)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

EAST YORK COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 39, rank ~70th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

EAST YORK COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 38.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.42 ha

Vitality Score

39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence

38.7 / 100

Citywide

70th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

59th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Urban Plaza (n=100)

Performance gap

-0

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 39 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 Activation17 · p77

-8.2

Amenity Diversity12 · p72

-7.6

Enclosure / Eyes on Park77 · p79

+2.7

Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)

+2.6

Natural Comfort38 · p31

-1.9

Connectivity55 · p65

+1.0

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

EAST YORK COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its enclosure score (77) is above average and its edge activation (17) is also top quartile (6 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

EAST YORK COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (38, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (77, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

EAST YORK COMMUNITY 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 (77) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 4170 m², paved (0% canopy), 33.2 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

17.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop, community) and 2 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%

55.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~274 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)16

Transit stops (400 m)21

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.56

Park perimeter274 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% weightpartial 45%

37.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~3.5% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~678 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.0/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)678 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon5

Tree density5.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used28

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

76.9 / 100

91 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 85 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.8 m (~2 floors); 33.2 buildings per 100 m of 274 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m91

Buildings within 50 m91

Avg edge height5.8 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building10.3 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)6

Low-rise (< 3 floors)85

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density33.21 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge7%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter274 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 (1 types · 1 records)

community centre

Nearby active-edge features (19)

community — Toronto Public Library - Todmorden Room0 m
transit stop — Pape Ave at Torrens Ave0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot14 m
transit stop — O'Connor Drive98 m
transit stop — Pape Ave at Gamble Ave111 m
transit stop — Pape Avenue112 m
transit stop — Pape Avenue125 m
parking lot129 m
retail — Neon Mini Mart135 m
cafe — Cafe Serano136 m
transit stop — O'Connor Drive139 m
parking lot142 m
retail — Keg Variety143 m
restaurant — The Greek Grill144 m
retail — Family Stop Dollar149 m
transit stop — O'Connor Drive156 m
transit stop — Rivercourt Boulevard175 m
parking lot188 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
70th
Edge activation
77th
Connectivity
65th
Amenity diversity
72th
Natural comfort
31th
Enclosure
79th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Dell ParkUrban Plaza41
Primrose Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza42
Regents ParkParkette39
Skeens Lane ParketteUrban Plaza42
Melbourne Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza42

Most opposite parks

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

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26

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 EAST YORK COMMUNITY 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.

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.