Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksWestminster-Branson (35)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

HERBERT H. CARNEGIE CENTENNIAL CENTRE - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~66th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: connectivity.

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

HERBERT H. CARNEGIE CENTENNIAL CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 37.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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 urban life

Area · 2.62 ha

Vitality Score

38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

37.7 / 100

Citywide

66th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

52nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

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 38 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 Activation16 · p74

-8.5

Amenity Diversity12 · p73

-7.6

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park71 · p70

+2.1

Connectivity44 · p42

-1.3

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

HERBERT H. CARNEGIE CENTENNIAL CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (16) is above average and its amenity diversity (12) is also above-average.

What limits this park

HERBERT H. CARNEGIE CENTENNIAL CENTRE - Building Grounds 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 edge activation (16, above-average).

Jacobs reading

HERBERT H. CARNEGIE CENTENNIAL 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 (71) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 16) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.6 ha, framed by 6 mid-rise vs 1 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

16.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop) 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%

43.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 7 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~757 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)10

Transit stops (400 m)7

Estimated entrances1

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.13

Park perimeter757 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%

44.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~8.0% effective canopy (1.7% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~410 m; 30 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.4/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 coverage1.7%

Canopy area0.04 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)410 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon30

Tree density11.4 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)12.2

Sample points used181

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

70.8 / 100

49 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 42 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 8.0 m (~3 floors); 6.5 buildings per 100 m of 757 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m49

Buildings within 50 m49

Avg edge height8.0 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building43.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)6

Low-rise (< 3 floors)42

Towers (≥ 13 floors)1

Frontage density6.47 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge12%

Tower share of edge2%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter757 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)

community centre

Nearby active-edge features (13)

parking lot10 m
transit stop — Goldfinch Court49 m
transit stop — Virgilwood Drive - North York General55 m
transit stop — Virgilwood Drive - North York General71 m
parking lot71 m
parking lot85 m
transit stop — Torresdale Avenue90 m
parking lot106 m
parking lot120 m
parking lot129 m
parking lot161 m
parking lot170 m
parking lot189 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
66th
Edge activation
74th
Connectivity
42th
Amenity diversity
73th
Natural comfort
48th
Enclosure
70th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Golf Club ParketteUrban Plaza37
Regents ParkParkette39
Merrill ParkParkette40
Donora ParkRavine / Naturalized Park40
Cronin ParkParkette39

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27

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 HERBERT H. CARNEGIE CENTENNIAL 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.
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.